You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by marc fleury <ma...@telkel.com> on 2000/11/10 19:33:59 UTC
Mail from Stallman on legality of LGPL in jboss
Sorry from the crosspost
So we asked Mr Stallman to state the obvious, the man obliged.
it was a waste of time/energy
1- Using our library in ANY software, without modification, does not trigger
LGPL coverage.
2- Developing our libraries and linking to non Free software is permitted
with LGPL, they must be "aware of it"
Thank you and good code....
regards
marc
PS: Stallman, besides being a amazingly educated man (carries extensive
conversations in perfect french) is actually a caring person and for someone
his age (what 50 now?) amazingly plugged into all things software. The
future of java seems to interest him greatly. He wants to see the
progression of "Free" software in java (the "libre" part) as much as we do,
and I found that interesting.
There were 2 questions (my questions are indented)
is integrating the library with other work (without any modification to
the
Library) a "modification of the Library" in case of the LGPL?
No, it is not. It is just using the library. The whole reason for
the LGPL is to give permission for this sort of thing in a way that
the GPL would not permit.
can we link our libraries LGPL to non-LGPL code and license that under
LGPL
to third parties
What you can do is release your library under the LGPL and suggest
that people use it together with other nonfree libraries. The LGPL
permits such combined usage.
However, people who want to use the two together in their programs
will have to be aware they are using both parts.
PS2: Even the GPL was legal with exceptions :))) but we agreed that it was
an interpretation of the GPL. I believe the LGPL gives us best of both
worlds
1- usage ok in products
2- feedback comes to us
tomcat + ant
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
How about the idea of updating the build.xml to support the latest version
of Ant before the next beta release? :-)
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
Re: [jBoss-User] Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: Mail from Stallman on legalityof LGPL in jboss
Posted by Rickard Oberg <ri...@telkel.com>.
> on 11/10/2000 11:10 AM, "marc fleury" <ma...@telkel.com> wrote:
>
> > jon, glad you like it but "taking credit" of the move is something
> > tasteless.
>
> I'm very much into taking credit for my hard work.
>
> I give nearly 100% of what I do away for free without any licensing
> restrictions except getting credit for the work I do.
I also give nearly 100% of what I do, on a daily basis. The question is not
about what you, but how and why you do it.
> What is wrong with that?
Anticipate everything, expect nothing. See above.
If someone gives me credit for anything I do (and they usually do), then
that's great. It warms my heart every time really. But if they don't, they
don't, and that's just fine. When you start expecting credit for something
you need to reevaluate your motivations IMHO.
> Like I said before, choosing something other than the GPL is right for
> jBoss. Personally, I would like you to choose the BSD/APL license, but the
> LGPL will work for now given that I don't contribute code to your project
> and am really only interested in potentially using it (as soon as I figure
> out why I would need EJB <smile>).
When you do, don't tell the world "hey guys, I figured it out", because the
only answer you'll get is "no shit. join the club".
> > We send our best goddam developer to your lists to straighten out the
> > situation
> > this guy is an alien, and the fat ladies shooo away branding their APL
> > crucifix
> >
> > WHAT IS GOING ON THERE?
> > WHERE IS THE TECHNOLOGY?
> >
> > WE ARE HERE TO WORK
> > WE ARE HERE TO HELP
>
> Dude...you aren't making any sense. :-(
We are are here to work.
We are here to help.
What part of work and help don't you understand?
> > You have SERIOUS problems with the basic integration speed and the work
we
> > put in is the basis for more integration beyond Tomcat. So trust me
when I
> > say "trust me... we better go back to code and straighten this stuff,
right
> > now it still sucks"...
>
> So, bring that up with the PMC and suggest alternatives to fix the
> situation. Again, this is a volunteer organization and if you have a
problem
> with something, help fix it.
You may have a problem with your volunteer organization. We are doing just
fine here, thank you. We want to help you, do you want to help us?
> > So again, keep "taking credit" and "menaces" to yourself in the future.
>
> Sure, I'm going to take credit for the work I do. I spent a lot of time
with
> emails with you trying to convince you of the right license. Why shouldn't
I
> take credit for that?
I regularly help people "figure things out", but I don't take credit for it
when they do. "Hello world, I got this dude to actually understand
something. Ain't I just great!". No thank you.
/Rickard
RE: [jBoss-User] Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: Mail from Stallman on legalityof LGPL in jboss
Posted by marc fleury <ma...@telkel.com>.
Alright forget it, one other reason I think we should stick to code is the
consistently fail to communicate one way and the other.
We send Rickard to the lists and the communication channel breaks down
fast...
So let's stick to code, java code, there are so many ways to interpret that
and I am curious to see if you will be able to find more meanings than the
one we intend to put in code <grin>
|I also take credit for hosting the entire jBoss project CVS and mailing
|lists.
|
|I do a hell of a lot for you. I'm going to take credit for it.
|
We give you credit FOR THE HELP you provide.
The license, I must say that your input was not the best and certainly not
what triggered an evaluation of LGPL. We have got everyone involved from
Stallman to Perens, in the "pundit" category, and your own "Behlendorf" to
look at the situation. Everyone feels LGPL will clear uncertainty... The
board agrees, the authors are voting all Ok for now with one abstain...
|> You have set a stage where we are going to work on code and
|everyone better
|> hold up.
|
|I think we have already set that stage long ago.
Yes but now we are seeing numbers and finalizing this first step of
implementing the basic j2ee stack container in the Open Source/Free world...
the spermatozoid is in the egg, or is it? if you catch my meaning (probably
not given our history of miscommunication). We truly want to work with your
people on your code and on your lists, in straightening what we percieve as
issues in your codebase... do give them a better welcome than "vade retro
GPL'ish satanas" or you won't see many embassadors on your lists for much
longer... do take that as a "warning" or a "menace" since you seem to grasp
that meaning.
we are (all you and us) an educated crowd, we are *technologists*,
we are the elite, we are not biggots, we are not in the dark ages.
We further technology infrastructure for the sake of technology...
Peace Love and *****Good***** Code,
marc
|
|-jon
|
|--
|http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
|http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
|http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
|http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
|
|
|
|--
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|To subscribe: jboss-user-on@list.working-dogs.com
|To unsubscribe: jboss-user-off@list.working-dogs.com
|Problems?: jon@working-dogs.com
|
|
Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: Mail from Stallman on legality of LGPL in
jboss
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 11/10/2000 11:10 AM, "marc fleury" <ma...@telkel.com> wrote:
> jon, glad you like it but "taking credit" of the move is something
> tasteless.
I'm very much into taking credit for my hard work.
I give nearly 100% of what I do away for free without any licensing
restrictions except getting credit for the work I do.
What is wrong with that?
> when all is said and all is done we do what is best for jBoss.
Like I said before, choosing something other than the GPL is right for
jBoss. Personally, I would like you to choose the BSD/APL license, but the
LGPL will work for now given that I don't contribute code to your project
and am really only interested in potentially using it (as soon as I figure
out why I would need EJB <smile>).
> We send our best goddam developer to your lists to straighten out the
> situation
> this guy is an alien, and the fat ladies shooo away branding their APL
> crucifix
>
> WHAT IS GOING ON THERE?
> WHERE IS THE TECHNOLOGY?
>
> WE ARE HERE TO WORK
> WE ARE HERE TO HELP
Dude...you aren't making any sense. :-(
> You have SERIOUS problems with the basic integration speed and the work we
> put in is the basis for more integration beyond Tomcat. So trust me when I
> say "trust me... we better go back to code and straighten this stuff, right
> now it still sucks"...
So, bring that up with the PMC and suggest alternatives to fix the
situation. Again, this is a volunteer organization and if you have a problem
with something, help fix it.
It is about being part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> So again, keep "taking credit" and "menaces" to yourself in the future.
Sure, I'm going to take credit for the work I do. I spent a lot of time with
emails with you trying to convince you of the right license. Why shouldn't I
take credit for that?
I also take credit for hosting the entire jBoss project CVS and mailing
lists.
I do a hell of a lot for you. I'm going to take credit for it.
> You have set a stage where we are going to work on code and everyone better
> hold up.
I think we have already set that stage long ago.
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: Mail from Stallman on legality of LGPL in jboss
Posted by marc fleury <ma...@telkel.com>.
|> There were 2 questions (my questions are indented)
|>
|> is integrating the library with other work (without any modification to
|> the
|> Library) a "modification of the Library" in case of the LGPL?
|>
|> No, it is not. It is just using the library. The whole reason for
|> the LGPL is to give permission for this sort of thing in a way that
|> the GPL would not permit.
|
|No shit.
|
|> can we link our libraries LGPL to non-LGPL code and license that under
|> LGPL
|> to third parties
|>
|> What you can do is release your library under the LGPL and suggest
|> that people use it together with other nonfree libraries. The LGPL
|> permits such combined usage.
|>
|> However, people who want to use the two together in their programs
|> will have to be aware they are using both parts.
|
|No shit.
|
|It sounds like you are going to switch JBoss to the LGPL. I'm very
|happy for
|you to do that as that is something that not only myself, but MANY other
|people (I know Brian told you to use either the LGPL or MPL) have been
|telling you to do for a long time now based on your two conditions above.
|
|I'm glad you are finally listening.
|
|thanks,
|
|-jon
jon, glad you like it but "taking credit" of the move is something
tasteless.
Many people have said many things, you included in the "philosophy nebulae",
information really low, noise and emotions high...
when all is said and all is done we do what is best for jBoss.
Just do me a favor and let's go back to code.
I was forwarded an email on your lists where rickard went to talk about JNDI
integration... cause the whole thing needs alot of work. I will not forward
the answer but it seems to me that when we say "jBoss" on apache we get 1000
mails not even answering the questions and raising holly wars on APL vs.
world.
We send our best goddam developer to your lists to straighten out the
situation
this guy is an alien, and the fat ladies shooo away branding their APL
crucifix
WHAT IS GOING ON THERE?
WHERE IS THE TECHNOLOGY?
WE ARE HERE TO WORK
WE ARE HERE TO HELP
You have SERIOUS problems with the basic integration speed and the work we
put in is the basis for more integration beyond Tomcat. So trust me when I
say "trust me... we better go back to code and straighten this stuff, right
now it still sucks"...
So again, keep "taking credit" and "menaces" to yourself in the future.
You have set a stage where we are going to work on code and everyone better
hold up.
marc
|
|--
|http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
|http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
|http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
|http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
|
|
|
Re: Mail from Stallman on legality of LGPL in jboss
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 11/10/2000 10:33 AM, "marc fleury" <ma...@telkel.com> wrote:
> Sorry from the crosspost
>
>
> So we asked Mr Stallman to state the obvious, the man obliged.
State what exactly? Oh wait...you put that at the bottom of your
email...ug...
> it was a waste of time/energy
What was a waste of time/energy? Marc, your emails need to be more clearly
stated.
> 1- Using our library in ANY software, without modification, does not trigger
> LGPL coverage.
What license is your library under?
> 2- Developing our libraries and linking to non Free software is permitted
> with LGPL, they must be "aware of it"
Huh? I need clarity here.
> Thank you and good code....
WHAT?
> PS: Stallman, besides being a amazingly educated man (carries extensive
> conversations in perfect french) is actually a caring person and for someone
> his age (what 50 now?) amazingly plugged into all things software. The
> future of java seems to interest him greatly. He wants to see the
> progression of "Free" software in java (the "libre" part) as much as we do,
> and I found that interesting.
Of course he wants to see "free java software"...that isn't anything
different than his current goals.
However, he doesn't necessarily care about Open Source software. Free and
Open are two different things and I'm not sure you understand the difference
Marc.
Free == GPL
Open Source == BSD
Free means that you are bound by terms of the license to keep the software
freely available.
Open source means that you can use the source code for whatever you want and
are not bound by the license to keep it freely available.
> There were 2 questions (my questions are indented)
>
> is integrating the library with other work (without any modification to
> the
> Library) a "modification of the Library" in case of the LGPL?
>
> No, it is not. It is just using the library. The whole reason for
> the LGPL is to give permission for this sort of thing in a way that
> the GPL would not permit.
No shit.
> can we link our libraries LGPL to non-LGPL code and license that under
> LGPL
> to third parties
>
> What you can do is release your library under the LGPL and suggest
> that people use it together with other nonfree libraries. The LGPL
> permits such combined usage.
>
> However, people who want to use the two together in their programs
> will have to be aware they are using both parts.
No shit.
> PS2: Even the GPL was legal with exceptions :))) but we agreed that it was
> an interpretation of the GPL. I believe the LGPL gives us best of both
> worlds
> 1- usage ok in products
> 2- feedback comes to us
Right.
It sounds like you are going to switch JBoss to the LGPL. I'm very happy for
you to do that as that is something that not only myself, but MANY other
people (I know Brian told you to use either the LGPL or MPL) have been
telling you to do for a long time now based on your two conditions above.
I'm glad you are finally listening.
thanks,
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/