| |||||||||||
Geronimo and JBossGeronimo and JBossPosted Jun 2, 2004 9:53 UTC (Wed) by pivot (guest, #588)In reply to: Geronimo and JBoss by angdraug Parent article: Apache Software Foundation Announces Apache Geronimo as an Official Project I dont get how you come to the conclusion that they should be threated the way XFree86 was threated just because they created a separate project due to licensing issues. Aren't they free to do so? And who said it is only due to licensing? JBoss is not the only open source J2EE implementation. The apache and apache jakarta project have produced a large number of successfull pieces of software, and some of it is due to their philosophy towards development methodologies and licensing issues. A full J2EE stack is a natural succession from all that.
(Log in to post comments)
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 11:58 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] I draw a parallel with XFree86 because, just like David Dawes, they intentionally stick to a GPL-incompatible license. Using GPL-incompatible licenses is bad for free software as it fragments the pool of available code. Instead of two classes of licenses, GPL and BSD-like, allowing free exchange of code between projects, now we get GPL vs. GPL-incompatible with no flow of code possible between the two. And who said it is only due to licensing? Greg Stain, ASF Chairman, said this, on the page I've posted a link to: JBoss is LGPL which is incompatible with the Apache license. Thus, we will not (and cannot) simply use the JBoss code. Of course, JBoss is invited to bring their code to Apache; they have a lot of value to bring, so I hope they will. (...) We're also inviting the JOnAS folks to partipate. (...) With the ASF's unrestrictive license, I'm hoping that people will be able to use the ASF implementation for their needs rather than building separate systems. Thus, instead of changing their license to be GPL-compatible and bringing two existing J2EE implementations under Apache umbrella, they chose to start from scratch and encourage other parties to move their code from LGPL to ASL, i.e., to increase the amount of code unavailable to GPL-licensed projects, instead of waiting for ASL to become GPL-compatible. Looks to me that Greg planned for GPL-incompatibility back then.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 13:17 UTC (Wed) by pivot (guest, #588) [Link] But you claim it is _only_ due to licensing issues? Please support that claim, not just that it is _also_ due to licensing issues.The apache foundation has a long history of using liberal licensing restriction, and the license is not explicitly made GPL incompatible, it is merely a result of their patent clause. Software patents is a very serious threat to any open source vendor, and it is every vendors right to choose the licensing that suits him best, even if it is incompatible with the license of existing software. > Looks to me that Greg planned for GPL-incompatibility back then. That's just FUD talk. Are you affiliated by JBoss in any way?
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 15:12 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] But you claim it is _only_ due to licensing issues? Please support that claim, not just that it is _also_ due to licensing issues. I do not "claim" it, I said that in my eyes ("I see that...") this appears to be the reason that is both sufficient and necessary (hence the reference to "iff") to justify the Geronimo project. I am still open to alternative explanations, but so far I see none. The apache foundation has a long history of using liberal licensing restriction (...) Same was true for the XFree86 project, and see where it went. It doesn't make any sense to debate ASL's GPL-incompatibility once again: 1) it has already been done before; 2) there are better forums for this topic; 3) this is a fact that can only be changed by ASF, not by some yet another flame. > Looks to me that Greg planned for GPL-incompatibility back then. No. That is a serious accusation, and at the absense of refutation, I am inclined to stand by it. Are you affiliated by JBoss in any way? No, I am not, and to my knowledge, the company I'm working for isn't affiliated with JBoss either. You can google for my nickname to see my affiliations if you need a proof. May I ask you the same, are you affiliated with ASF in any way? In this case, I am just an angry member of the community who is seriously pissed off by the growing amount of GPL-incompatible software.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 16:09 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] IMHO the Apache Software Foundation tried hard to ensure that Apache License 2.0 was compatible with the GPL (version 2). The ASF worked on the new licence for several years, and anyone interested in it was welcome to comment on an appropriate mailing list. Eben Moglen commented on an early draft, stating:
The ASF basically believe the finalised 2.0 licence is GPL-compatible. It only became obvious that the FSF disagree when they updated their licence list. It's absolute rubbish to suggest Apache License 2.0 was designed to be incompatible with the GPL. Obviously the ASF cannot re-use LGPL'd code because the licence is too restrictive. Rest assured that the existence of Geronimo and Apache-licensed code will not make JBoss disappear.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 16:39 UTC (Wed) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] You can use ASF code in your GPL code. We, the ASF, aren't going to bother you about it. It's just the FSF who thinks they aren't compatible. We want to see our code used far and wide by all comers, be they individuals, companies, free software hackers or people building even proprietary products.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 20:05 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Are you ready to give a written statement on behalf of ASF to re-license ASF code under GPL or any other GPL-compatible license?
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 20:43 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] The document Apache License v2.0 and GPL Compatibility on the Apache web site may shed some light.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 3, 2004 9:04 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Yes, I've seen that, but I've also seen this analysis, and I tend to agree with it. And debian-legal is as far from being blind FSF's supporters as it could be (see GFDL/DFSG conflict). As I've already said, this horse has been beaten to death already, no need to repeat it once again.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 3, 2004 5:28 UTC (Thu) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] I draw a parallel with XFree86 because, just like David Dawes, they intentionally stick to a GPL-incompatible license. Using GPL-incompatible licenses is bad for free software as it fragments the pool of available code. Instead of two classes of licenses, GPL and BSD-like, allowing free exchange of code between projects, now we get GPL vs. GPL-incompatible with no flow of code possible between the two.And who said it is only due to licensing? Greg Stain, ASF Chairman, said this, on the page I've posted a link to: JBoss is LGPL which is incompatible with the Apache license. Thus, we will not (and cannot) simply use the JBoss code. Of course, JBoss is invited to bring their code to Apache; they have a lot of value to bring, so I hope they will. (...) We're also inviting the JOnAS folks to partipate. (...) With the ASF's unrestrictive license, I'm hoping that people will be able to use the ASF implementation for their needs rather than building separate systems. Please do not mix things that have nothing to do with each other. I don't know what the FSF has against Apache, but we all know that the Geronimo folks could not reuse LGPL code anyway, just like BSD cannot take (L)GPL code and put it under a pure BSD license. And this is what Greg Stain is talking about.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 3, 2004 9:26 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Please do not mix things that have nothing to do with each other. I don't know what the FSF has against Apache, but we all know that the Geronimo folks could not reuse LGPL code anyway, just like BSD cannot take (L)GPL code and put it under a pure BSD license. And this is what Greg Stain is talking about. Should we re-stage the BSD vs. GPL holy war here? FSF has nothing against Apache, they find ASL 2.0 a fine free software license, the only problem with it being GPL-incompatible. Geronimo folks could reuse LGPL code, combine it with BSD code, and put it under LGPL, but they willingly chose not to. Fine, they had a reason for that, they want their code to be available to proprietary software vendors, and they are willing to pay the price of implementing J2EE from scratch. But if that be their goal, they could at least release their code under a GPL-compatible BSD-like license, so that other folks could combine it with LGPL code and put it under LGPL. And at the time Geronimo started, Greg's promises made everyone believe that this scenario is to take place. The fact that they chose to deny others such freedom shows that they are hostile to GPL. Being a GPL supporter and releasing my own software under GPL, I obviously have a problem with that.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 4, 2004 8:36 UTC (Fri) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] Ok. You have a problem with it, that's fine. But it's still not right to misquote someone like that, when we all know he was speaking about something entirely different than you are.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 8, 2004 9:53 UTC (Tue) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Don't be knitpicking. I gave a link to the original discussion so that anyone can RTFA and see for themselves if I'm misquoting or not. At least that is the way I understood it back then: Greg was asked point blank why not use JBoss code and he said it was due to licensing. What's wrong with quoting that?
|
|||||||||||