You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk> on 2003/08/26 09:29:13 UTC
ASM looks cool but LGPL (was Re: [bcel] Is anyone a BCEL expert?)
I've heard good reports of ASM
http://asm.objectweb.org/
and its very small (22Kb) - only problem is its LGPL :(. Anyone fancy
trying to persuade them to change licence :)
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 11:35 pm, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 04:30 PM, Jens Schumann wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/03 05:11 PM Dain Sundstrom <da...@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We are going to need some BCEL code which varies from simple to quite
>>> complex. If you are an expert or eager to learn, here is what we
>>> need
>>> (from simple to complex):
>>
>> [...] A few examples creating bytecode [...]
>>
>> I guess I touch a sensitive topic here, but wouldn't it be better to
>> approach a AOP style solution instead - maybe by using AspectWerkz or
>> something. I think in the long run there is more involved than
>> creating
>> proxies for field interception only etc.
>
> I would really, really, really like to delay the AOP framework
> discussion to much latter. We have just a few places we need byte
> code generation, and not an entire framework. If you have a *free*
> tool that we *can* use that do the mentioned things easily, and
> generates fast code (like bcel can), them please show us how (a
> patch), otherwise I think we should just go with BCEL (for now).
>
> -dain
>
>
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by "Daniel S. Haischt" <me...@daniel.stefan.haischt.name>.
Jeff Mesnil wrote:
[...]
>
>
>
> Indeed, the FSF states that APL code is not compatible with *GPL[1]
> (but the opposite is ok).
see also ...
-> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
i have the distinct impression that the statement:
a) APL is incompatible with GPL/LGPL
b) but GPL/LGPL is compatible with APL
is wrong because _all_ GPLed software components (including the imported
libraries) need to be copyleft software AFAIK?
maybe my explanatory statement is wrong, too. but my impression
remains ;-)
>
>> No. There are many licences that BSD / ASF style licences can work
>> with. It just cannot work with LGPL or GPL. i.e. its just LGPL and GPL
>> which are viral & can't work with other commercial or open source
>> licences.
>
>
>
> James, I haven't been able to find on Apache web site a list of APL
> compatible licenses. Do you know if such a
> document exist?
>
see -> ...
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg06171.html
it's a discussion about AFL but also includes replies about APL.
regards
daniel s. haischt
--
RE: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Christophe Ney <ch...@objectweb.org>.
It is interesting to notice that a BSD license would
"nearly disappear" too: The BSD license has the same
properties as the Apache license in this situation.
Christophe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 2:36 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: architecture@objectweb.org
> Subject: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM
> looks cool
> but LGPL)
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 03:26 AM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> >
> >> Thus, you can see that any License that restricts the freedom
> >> associated
> >> with the user conflicts with the Apache License.
> >
> > To clarify - if you take A (Apache-licensed) and B
> (licensed under any
> > other license) and combine them into AB, you must follow
> the terms of
> > both
> > licenses when distributing the combined work. Thus, the "derived"
> > license
> > - the superset of terms in the licenses of A and B - is
> what matters.
> > The Apache license is designed to nearly disappear in the
> case of "AB",
> > since its requirements are so easy to satisfy.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, this is an important clarification to make! Certainly
> my snippet could have been misread. I was speaking not of
> the combination of licenses, but the overall comparison
> of licenses.
>
>
>
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>.
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 03:26 AM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
>> Thus, you can see that any License that restricts the freedom
>> associated
>> with the user conflicts with the Apache License.
>
> To clarify - if you take A (Apache-licensed) and B (licensed under any
> other license) and combine them into AB, you must follow the terms of
> both
> licenses when distributing the combined work. Thus, the "derived"
> license
> - the superset of terms in the licenses of A and B - is what matters.
> The Apache license is designed to nearly disappear in the case of "AB",
> since its requirements are so easy to satisfy.
>
>
Yes, this is an important clarification to make! Certainly
my snippet could have been misread. I was speaking not of
the combination of licenses, but the overall comparison
of licenses.
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
(re-adding the cc: to architecture@objectweb.org)
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One key item to recall is that when we came up with the Apache License,
> one of the main considerations to it was that there would be
> nothing in the license or code that would restrict *anyone* from
> taking the code and using it as needed (as long as such basic
> things as attribution and trademarks were honored).
Correct.
> Thus, you can see that any License that restricts the freedom associated
> with the user conflicts with the Apache License.
To clarify - if you take A (Apache-licensed) and B (licensed under any
other license) and combine them into AB, you must follow the terms of both
licenses when distributing the combined work. Thus, the "derived" license
- the superset of terms in the licenses of A and B - is what matters.
The Apache license is designed to nearly disappear in the case of "AB",
since its requirements are so easy to satisfy.
The GPL is only "compatible" in this same way with code whose license has
terms that are a strict subset of the GPL's own terms, simply because the
GPL forbids people from adding additional terms when they redistribute GPL
code. Strictly speaking there are terms in the Apache license that are
not in the GPL license - such as the part about mentioning where the
Apache software came from in "end-user documentation or wherever such
notices normally appear". This is hardly contrary in spirit to the GPL,
which itself has a similar clause in section 2c.
While I am not officially speaking for the ASF here, I think everyone at
the ASF would be fine with a combination of codebase A (Apache-licensed)
and codebase B (GPL-licensed) resulting in a codebase AB that is
GPL-licensed. This generosity towards the GPL is the same generosity we
feel towards corporations including our code in commercial projects.
However that same reason is why we can not accept GPL'd code into code the
ASF would redistribute.
The LGPL follows the same rules, though scoped a bit more narrowly to the
"library" level rather than the whole "work based on the Program" that the
GPL defines. Modulo some other differences.
Thus, if the Jonas and Geronimo developers wish to work together on a
common piece of code that both teams need, it makes sense that the
codebase they work on should be Apache-licensed. That makes it possible
for both teams to use and develop common code, even if the end result in
Jonas is LGPL'd as a whole.
If there is still concern about using Apache-licensed code within GPL or
LGPL projects due to the FSF's claim that they are incompatible, then
there are two things that the Apache developers could petition the ASF
Board to do:
a) Consider making a public statement that the Apache license is
compatible with the GPL and LGPL. While the FSF may continue to disagree,
this would reassure everyone that the ASF would not pursue any action to
prevent the use of Apache software inside a GPL project.
b) Officially dual-license all Apache code under both the Apache license
and the LGPL.
I consider a) much more likely to succeed than b) for emotional reasons,
though I tend to think neither is mandatory at this point.
Brian
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>.
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 10:06 AM, Jeff Mesnil wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear. We have *no* choice at Apache. We *cannot* legally
>> use any LGPL or GPL code.
>
>
> Indeed, the FSF states that APL code is not compatible with *GPL[1]
> (but the opposite is ok).
>
>> No. There are many licences that BSD / ASF style licences can work
>> with. It just cannot work with LGPL or GPL. i.e. its just LGPL and
>> GPL which are viral & can't work with other commercial or open source
>> licences.
>
>
> James, I haven't been able to find on Apache web site a list of APL
> compatible licenses. Do you know if such a
> document exist?
>
One key item to recall is that when we came up with the Apache License,
one of the main considerations to it was that there would be
nothing in the license or code that would restrict *anyone* from
taking the code and using it as needed (as long as such basic
things as attribution and trademarks were honored). In a nutshell,
the Apache license gives the freedom priority to the users, whereas
the (L)GPL license gives the freedom priority to the code.
Thus, you can see that any License that restricts the freedom associated
with the user conflicts with the Apache License.
Check out:
http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html
and the section "Why Apache Is Free".
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Jeff Mesnil <Je...@inrialpes.fr>.
James Strachan wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 06:22 pm, François LETELLIER
> (ObjectWeb) wrote:
>
>> James' point is good advocacy for the APL. However the question here
>> is not a question of license, but a question of policy. It'd be a
>> choice for JOnAS teams to change license (keeping in mind that all
>> copyright holders would have to agree), just as much as it'd be a
>> choice for Geronimo teams to take on then LGPL - or any other OSL.
>
>
> Just to be clear. We have *no* choice at Apache. We *cannot* legally
> use any LGPL or GPL code.
Indeed, the FSF states that APL code is not compatible with *GPL[1]
(but the opposite is ok).
> No. There are many licences that BSD / ASF style licences can work
> with. It just cannot work with LGPL or GPL. i.e. its just LGPL and GPL
> which are viral & can't work with other commercial or open source
> licences.
James, I haven't been able to find on Apache web site a list of APL
compatible licenses. Do you know if such a
document exist?
jeff
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/Apache.html
--
Jeff Mesnil INRIA - ObjectWeb Consortium
JOTM project leader
email: jmesnil at inrialpes.fr
homepage: http://sardes.inrialpes.fr/people/jmesnil/perso.html
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 06:22 pm, François LETELLIER
(ObjectWeb) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> well it's up to each organization to define its own policy. AFAIK,
> there are discussions between ASF and ObjectWeb to find ways of coping
> with license discrepancies because it's worth for technical reasons.
> Apparently, people are not parochial, and both sides are ready to
> envision the necessary steps. The idea is not to throw the baby away
> with the bath water but instead to seize the opportunity of
> cooperation - for JOnAS is already a J2EE-grade (though not
> "certified") app server and the projects teams could bring some
> expertise.
>
> James' point is good advocacy for the APL. However the question here
> is not a question of license, but a question of policy. It'd be a
> choice for JOnAS teams to change license (keeping in mind that all
> copyright holders would have to agree), just as much as it'd be a
> choice for Geronimo teams to take on then LGPL - or any other OSL.
Just to be clear. We have *no* choice at Apache. We *cannot* legally
use any LGPL or GPL code.
> In my understanding, James argues that the LGPL drawback is its viral
> aspect - which contaminates other pieces of software. However,
> sticking to the APL-or-nothing standpoint is just as viral, since it
> requires that all other pieces of software, for being taken aboard, be
> under the same license flavor.
No. There are many licences that BSD / ASF style licences can work
with. It just cannot work with LGPL or GPL. i.e. its just LGPL and GPL
which are viral & can't work with other commercial or open source
licences.
> It's a conceptual shift from viral license to viral policy ;-) Hence
> the need for case by case assessments and common thinking on possible
> solutions.
I don't follow. Pretty much any other licence but *GPL would do. We're
not asking you to use ASL - though BSD-compatible licences are cool -
choose any other you like and we'll probably be able to work together.
However stick with *GPL and we have no choice whatsoever, we can't use
any *GPL software.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by "François LETELLIER (ObjectWeb)" <fr...@objectweb.org>.
Hi all,
well it's up to each organization to define its own policy. AFAIK, there
are discussions between ASF and ObjectWeb to find ways of coping with
license discrepancies because it's worth for technical reasons. Apparently,
people are not parochial, and both sides are ready to envision the
necessary steps. The idea is not to throw the baby away with the bath water
but instead to seize the opportunity of cooperation - for JOnAS is already
a J2EE-grade (though not "certified") app server and the projects teams
could bring some expertise.
James' point is good advocacy for the APL. However the question here is not
a question of license, but a question of policy. It'd be a choice for JOnAS
teams to change license (keeping in mind that all copyright holders would
have to agree), just as much as it'd be a choice for Geronimo teams to take
on then LGPL - or any other OSL.
In my understanding, James argues that the LGPL drawback is its viral
aspect - which contaminates other pieces of software. However, sticking to
the APL-or-nothing standpoint is just as viral, since it requires that all
other pieces of software, for being taken aboard, be under the same license
flavor. It's a conceptual shift from viral license to viral policy ;-)
Hence the need for case by case assessments and common thinking on possible
solutions.
Regards,
- Francois.
At 17:08 28/08/2003 +0100, James Strachan wrote:
>Just to be clear in case any ObjectWeb folks don't know. Apache software
>cannot import any *GPL code since its a viral licence. So on a project
>like Apache Geronimo we cannot import any ObjectWeb code - hence we can't
>use ASM.
>
>However if Geronimo links to the JMS API (which we have an ASF/BSD version
>of it) then a user could deploy JORAM inside Geronimo. Though due to the
>LGPL licence Apache couldn't bundle JORAM inside it and host it at Apache
>- though others could if they wished. e.g. ObjectWeb could host a
>deployment of Geronimo with LGPL stuff inside it.
>
>If any ObjectWeb projects were available under a BSD style licence then
>Apache projects could happily use them directly & import the code (e.g. ASM).
>
>
>On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 01:36 pm, Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>
>>hello,
>>
>>is it up to a particular ObjectWeb software project team to
>>decide whether they want to re-release their software under
>>a new or dual license or will the ObjectWeb group work on
>>a strategy on how it would be possible to 'enabling its (ASF's)
>>projects to use some OW code'?
>>
>>i for instance am interested in the JORAM JMS server [1] because
>>that project implements the JMS v1.1 API and because it now ships
>>with that nifty kJORAM J2ME library which enables people not to rely
>>on the commercial iBuss//Mobile software [2].
>>
>>just out of curiosity - why was the JORAM project moved from
>>a CPL license to LGPL?
>>
>>regards
>>
>>daniel s. haischt
>>--
>>
>>references:
>>
>>[1]: http://joram.objectweb.org/
>>[2]: http://www.softwired.ch/products/mobile/mobile.html
>>
>>Jeff Mesnil wrote:
>>>(given the subject, I crosspost to ObjectWeb architecture mailing list)
>>>Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>>>>James Strachan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Just to be clear - we cannot touch any LGPL code at Apache so that
>>>>>rules out ASM for now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>yes, that was my distinct understanding!
>>>>
>>>>i just wanted to explain that i do not think that the
>>>>ObjectWeb group will release ASM under a BSD kinda
>>>>license.
>>>There have been some talks within ObjectWeb community to see
>>>how we (the OW community) can collaborate more with Apache and Geronimo.
>>>License is one of the main issues what we have to solve but I do believe
>>>that we can find a good solution for both Apache and ObjectWeb.
>>>After all, lots of OW projects already use some Apache code.
>>>Why not thank Apache back by enabling its projects to use some OW code?
>>>ObjectWeb and Apache have some complementary projects and I personally
>>>think that both community can benefit from better cooperation.
>>>ASM would be a good start.
>>>So the licensing issue is open but OW community is carefully
>>>considering it.
>>>jeff
>>
>
>James
>-------
>http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
Just to be clear in case any ObjectWeb folks don't know. Apache
software cannot import any *GPL code since its a viral licence. So on a
project like Apache Geronimo we cannot import any ObjectWeb code -
hence we can't use ASM.
However if Geronimo links to the JMS API (which we have an ASF/BSD
version of it) then a user could deploy JORAM inside Geronimo. Though
due to the LGPL licence Apache couldn't bundle JORAM inside it and host
it at Apache - though others could if they wished. e.g. ObjectWeb could
host a deployment of Geronimo with LGPL stuff inside it.
If any ObjectWeb projects were available under a BSD style licence then
Apache projects could happily use them directly & import the code (e.g.
ASM).
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 01:36 pm, Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
> hello,
>
> is it up to a particular ObjectWeb software project team to
> decide whether they want to re-release their software under
> a new or dual license or will the ObjectWeb group work on
> a strategy on how it would be possible to 'enabling its (ASF's)
> projects to use some OW code'?
>
> i for instance am interested in the JORAM JMS server [1] because
> that project implements the JMS v1.1 API and because it now ships
> with that nifty kJORAM J2ME library which enables people not to rely
> on the commercial iBuss//Mobile software [2].
>
> just out of curiosity - why was the JORAM project moved from
> a CPL license to LGPL?
>
> regards
>
> daniel s. haischt
> --
>
> references:
>
> [1]: http://joram.objectweb.org/
> [2]: http://www.softwired.ch/products/mobile/mobile.html
>
> Jeff Mesnil wrote:
>> (given the subject, I crosspost to ObjectWeb architecture mailing
>> list)
>> Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>>> James Strachan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to be clear - we cannot touch any LGPL code at Apache so that
>>>> rules out ASM for now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> yes, that was my distinct understanding!
>>>
>>> i just wanted to explain that i do not think that the
>>> ObjectWeb group will release ASM under a BSD kinda
>>> license.
>> There have been some talks within ObjectWeb community to see
>> how we (the OW community) can collaborate more with Apache and
>> Geronimo.
>> License is one of the main issues what we have to solve but I do
>> believe
>> that we can find a good solution for both Apache and ObjectWeb.
>> After all, lots of OW projects already use some Apache code.
>> Why not thank Apache back by enabling its projects to use some OW
>> code?
>> ObjectWeb and Apache have some complementary projects and I personally
>> think that both community can benefit from better cooperation.
>> ASM would be a good start.
>> So the licensing issue is open but OW community is carefully
>> considering it.
>> jeff
>
>
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by "Daniel S. Haischt" <me...@daniel.stefan.haischt.name>.
hello,
is it up to a particular ObjectWeb software project team to
decide whether they want to re-release their software under
a new or dual license or will the ObjectWeb group work on
a strategy on how it would be possible to 'enabling its (ASF's)
projects to use some OW code'?
i for instance am interested in the JORAM JMS server [1] because
that project implements the JMS v1.1 API and because it now ships
with that nifty kJORAM J2ME library which enables people not to rely
on the commercial iBuss//Mobile software [2].
just out of curiosity - why was the JORAM project moved from
a CPL license to LGPL?
regards
daniel s. haischt
--
references:
[1]: http://joram.objectweb.org/
[2]: http://www.softwired.ch/products/mobile/mobile.html
Jeff Mesnil wrote:
> (given the subject, I crosspost to ObjectWeb architecture mailing list)
>
> Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>
>> James Strachan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to be clear - we cannot touch any LGPL code at Apache so that
>>> rules out ASM for now.
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, that was my distinct understanding!
>>
>> i just wanted to explain that i do not think that the
>> ObjectWeb group will release ASM under a BSD kinda
>> license.
>
>
> There have been some talks within ObjectWeb community to see
> how we (the OW community) can collaborate more with Apache and Geronimo.
>
> License is one of the main issues what we have to solve but I do believe
> that we can find a good solution for both Apache and ObjectWeb.
> After all, lots of OW projects already use some Apache code.
> Why not thank Apache back by enabling its projects to use some OW code?
>
> ObjectWeb and Apache have some complementary projects and I personally
> think that both community can benefit from better cooperation.
> ASM would be a good start.
>
> So the licensing issue is open but OW community is carefully
> considering it.
>
> jeff
>
ObjectWeb (was Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL)
Posted by Jeff Mesnil <Je...@inrialpes.fr>.
(given the subject, I crosspost to ObjectWeb architecture mailing list)
Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear - we cannot touch any LGPL code at Apache so that
>> rules out ASM for now.
>
>
> yes, that was my distinct understanding!
>
> i just wanted to explain that i do not think that the
> ObjectWeb group will release ASM under a BSD kinda
> license.
There have been some talks within ObjectWeb community to see
how we (the OW community) can collaborate more with Apache and Geronimo.
License is one of the main issues what we have to solve but I do believe
that we can find a good solution for both Apache and ObjectWeb.
After all, lots of OW projects already use some Apache code.
Why not thank Apache back by enabling its projects to use some OW code?
ObjectWeb and Apache have some complementary projects and I personally
think that both community can benefit from better cooperation.
ASM would be a good start.
So the licensing issue is open but OW community is carefully
considering it.
jeff
--
Jeff Mesnil INRIA - ObjectWeb Consortium
JOTM project leader
email: jmesnil at inrialpes.fr
homepage: http://sardes.inrialpes.fr/people/jmesnil/perso.html
Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL (was Re: [bcel] Is anyone a BCEL expert?)
Posted by "Daniel S. Haischt" <me...@daniel.stefan.haischt.name>.
James Strachan wrote:
[...]
>
>
> Just to be clear - we cannot touch any LGPL code at Apache so that rules
> out ASM for now.
yes, that was my distinct understanding!
i just wanted to explain that i do not think that the
ObjectWeb group will release ASM under a BSD kinda
license.
regards
daniel s. haischt
--
Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL (was Re: [bcel] Is anyone a BCEL expert?)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 10:33 am, Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>> I've heard good reports of ASM
>> http://asm.objectweb.org/
>> and its very small (22Kb) - only problem is its LGPL :(. Anyone fancy
>> trying to persuade them to change licence :)
>
> i have recently suggested ASM to Aaron Mulder while he
> was implementing JSR88 into OpenEJB.
>
> the point with ASM/ObjectWeb is that they seem to have a
> strategy to release all of their project under GPL/LGPL.
>
> recently they converted the OPL based JORAM JMS server
> into LGPL based software.
Just to be clear - we cannot touch any LGPL code at Apache so that
rules out ASM for now.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ASM looks cool but LGPL (was Re: [bcel] Is anyone a BCEL expert?)
Posted by "Daniel S. Haischt" <me...@daniel.stefan.haischt.name>.
James Strachan wrote:
> I've heard good reports of ASM
>
> http://asm.objectweb.org/
>
> and its very small (22Kb) - only problem is its LGPL :(. Anyone fancy
> trying to persuade them to change licence :)
i have recently suggested ASM to Aaron Mulder while he
was implementing JSR88 into OpenEJB.
the point with ASM/ObjectWeb is that they seem to have a
strategy to release all of their project under GPL/LGPL.
recently they converted the OPL based JORAM JMS server
into LGPL based software.
[...]
regards
daniel s. haischt
--