Hi, On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 11:32, Dalibor Topic wrote: > Jan Schulz wrote: > > * Dalibor Topic wrote: > > > >>* figure out how you want to interpret the GPL in this case. The rest > >>follows from that. > >> > >>>Problems not touched: *execution* of GPL-incompatible code using > >>> GPLed libs and/or GPLed JVMs is beyond the scope of this message. > > > > > > Could you please take this two thing to debian-legal and get a opinion > > there. > > Agreed. That would be a good idea to do. But be careful when you talk about "linking" or "execution". When talking about creating works under the GPL you are better off when you use "derived work" or "work based on the program" since that is what the GPL talks about. (Although linking is of course in almost all cases creating a work based on the program, but in the end it is a judgment call.) In almost every case it is best to get a clear statement of copyright holder on how to interpret their license, but also keep in mind that if a case ever comes in front of a judge the literal text of a license is also very important. And remember that besides arguing about interpretations of licenses there are also alternative solutions such as Red Hat demonstrated. The RHUG project for example provides a long list free java software works that have been made to work with the gcj environment (which gives the additional benefit of a nice speedup and real library sharing since libgcj.so is a normal shared library and not a bunch of byte codes that have to be interpreted/jitted each time your traditional java environment starts up). See http://sources.redhat.com/rhug/ for the list of available applications (which include Ant, Tomcat and lots of jakarta stuff). There are also RPMs available through the Naoko project, see http://people.redhat.com/gbenson/naoko/ Maybe this can be used as basis for Debian main packages. > 1051 GPLd Java apps. By far the most popular license for Java apps. > [...] > > I hate licenses... > > Don't agree. GPL is quite nice for me, the trouble is that the rest of > the world sometimes uses something incompatible and then we have to play > lawyers to decide what's allowed and what not ;) I agree that the GPL is a very nice way to distribute my programs. The problem we are facing at the moment is, like Grzegorz already said, similar to the old KDE mess. People like to use the GPL for their own programs or for works based on GPLed works, but sometimes fail to realize that when they also base that work on GPL-incompatible licenses (such as the Common Public License or the Apache License) that, like in the old KDE/QT case, their work becomes undistributable (unless they can give an explicit exception to the GPL for their work and the non-GPL compatible work). GPL and licenses that add extra restrictions to the freedoms of the user receiving the application/source just doesn't mix. Luckily the most important other java related license/projects can probably be convinced to help us clear this up. The FSF and the Apache project, which has a lot of nice free java software libraries, hopes that a next version of the Apache license that they are now working on will become GPL compatibl. And after the GNU Classpath workshop at Linux-kongress we briefly talked with Michael Tiemann who is on the Eclipse board and who at least understood what the problem was that the CPL that is used for Eclipse (and the SWT) library causes people who just want to create GPLed works. If you have contacts with developers using either the CPL or the Apache license then you might want to bring up this point since it would help the free java in Debian main situation a lot. Cheers, Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part