Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
From: "marc fleury" <marc.fleury@telkel.com>
To: "jBoss Developer" <jboss-dev@list.working-dogs.com>
Cc: "tomcat-dev" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>,
	"Java Apache Framework" <java-apache-framework@list.working-dogs.com>
Subject: RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:22:43 -0800
Message-ID: <NEBBKBHGMDOHJIFMLKCOCEEMDEAA.marc.fleury@telkel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <39FD2647.BF4B17A1@telkel.com>

no be careful 2b is about containment, containment is the STRONGEST,
definition of the work is "CMD'ed work" and that is the MBeans in our case
(they are GPL).

<I need to go back to work />

marc


|-----Original Message-----
|From: jboss-dev@list.working-dogs.com
|[mailto:jboss-dev@list.working-dogs.com]On Behalf Of Rickard �berg
|Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:42 PM
|To: jBoss Developer
|Cc: tomcat-dev; Java Apache Framework
|Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update
|
|
|Dear all,
|
|I've read through the GPL license, and I'm not a legal expert but from
|what I can see paragraph 2b is a killer. For example, I cannot see how
|XO3 can redistribute jBoss with Tomcat and reasonably call it "mere
|aggregation" (i.e. our JMX integration is not "mere aggregation", it is
|much more than that), thus OpenJoda needs to "be licensed as a whole at
|no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Which
|breaks Tomcat's license, so it's out of the question.
|
|After listening to Marc's and all others arguments back and forth I have
|the following thoughts (right or wrong, here they are):
|* GPL paragraph 2b is a killer, and I cannot see how we can
|bundle/integrate Tomcat without having to apply GPL to the whole
|shebang. Sorry Marc, I just don't see it. The clause does not say "mere
|aggregation in a Program" (which is what we do). It says "mere
|aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program
|(or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
|distribution medium", which is a completely different thing, closer to
|Oles reference to RedHat CD's (BTW, yes I know I'm violating GPL
|copyright by quoting it. So sue me)
|* *Regardless* of whether we can do this or not, we can't "win". I don't
|really care how *we* interpret GPL, and from what it seems our
|interpretation is the loosest ever. It will do two things:
|1) GPL hardcores will, pretty much, hate jBoss. Slashdot, here we come..
|2) "Suits" will stay away from jBoss ANYWAY, because it uses GPL. "So,
|we can use it? Nah, my left foot says no, so that's it. I'm going with
|OpenEJB. BSD gives me a fuzzy feeling". I don't care if it's rational or
|not; there you have it.
|
|To me the solution seems clear. IMHO jBoss is not a "baby" anymore. We
|do not have anything to gain by doing a crusade with GPL. We may not be
|exactly where we want just yet (i.e. Project Game Over is not done), but
|we sure are "enough" along the way to getting there. I may be wrong, but
|that's my gut feeling anyway :-)
|
|So, for it to grow to the heights we want it if changing the license to
|APL or MPL or BSD, or whatever makes sense (just not GPL), is what it
|takes, then that's the way to go. IMHO of course.
|
|regards,
|  Rickard
|
|ps. Just to make it super-clear: These are the opinions of Rickard
|�berg, and are not necessarily representative of those of his employer.
|
|--
|Rickard �berg
|
|Email: rickard@telkel.com
|http://www.telkel.com
|http://www.jboss.org
|http://www.dreambean.com
|
|
|