JBoss

[sebek]

Hi,
can I use JBoss AS and Seam commercial?

Thanx!

 

[Philipp Taprogge]

Hi!

Thus spake sebek on 05/17/2007 10:52 AM:

Hi,
can I use JBoss AS and Seam commercial?

I don't know if you /can/, that depends on your skill and
requirements ;-)

Ff you are referring to the license however, that is not a problem.
the JEMS is released under the LGPL, allowing you to even modify it
for a commercial product.

Regards,

Phil

 

[Guest]

can I use JBoss AS and Seam commercial?

Yes.

It is open source.

Arne

 

[Philipp Taprogge]

Hi!

Thus spake Arne Vajhøj on 05/19/2007 09:52 PM:

Yes.

It is open source.

opensource != free for all...

Please keep in mind that many open source projects, namely those released
under terms of the GPL, can _not_ be freely used in commercial products.
Since JBoss is released under LGPL terms, this is not an issue here, though.

Regards,

Phil

 

[Guest]

Thus spake Arne Vajhøj on 05/19/2007 09:52 PM:

opensource != free for all...

open source == free for all

Please keep in mind that many open source projects, namely those released
under terms of the GPL, can _not_ be freely used in commercial products.

It most certainly can.

Indeed RMS and FSF would encourage it.

But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes
automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost
all commercial products.

But the GPL code is available for commercial usage.

If you check the definition for open source you will find:

"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

Link: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Arne

 

[Tom Hawtin]

But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes
automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost
all commercial products.

Not true, AFAIK. IANAL. If you break the terms of the GPL, you just
break the terms of the GPL. You get flamed of slashdot lots. That may or
may not be a big deal to you. You may then have further legal
proceedings against you. However, AFAIK, code linked to GPL and
published remains your code. I am not a lawyer.

Tom Hawtin

 

[Guest]

Not true, AFAIK. IANAL. If you break the terms of the GPL, you just
break the terms of the GPL. You get flamed of slashdot lots. That may or
may not be a big deal to you. You may then have further legal
proceedings against you. However, AFAIK, code linked to GPL and
published remains your code. I am not a lawyer.

It remains your code, but you have implicit released
it under GPL.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

Arne

 

[Guest]

It remains your code, but you have implicit released
it under GPL.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

I don't think the "piracy license" (this program contains
code distributed in violation of the GPL license, so the
rules of the GPL license does not apply) will work very well.

Arne

 

[Tom Hawtin]

"If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
"Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."

Well, the GPL license says it has to be released under GPL, but you can
break the GPL license.

I don't think the "piracy license" (this program contains
code distributed in violation of the GPL license, so the
rules of the GPL license does not apply) will work very well.

You can still prosecute other people for infringing your copyright if
you yourself infringe copyright. I don't think there is any problem with
that at all. IANAL.

Tom Hawtin

 

[~kurt]

Please keep in mind that many open source projects, namely those released
under terms of the GPL, can _not_ be freely used in commercial products.

This is simply not true. If you intend to use a GPL'ed library, and link to
it, then yes, you must GPL your code to comply with the license. It can still
be freely used in commercial products. This is why most libraries use
the LGPL which does not require this.

Since JBoss is released under LGPL terms, this is not an issue here, though.

I have never used JBoss - but, as an application server, is it used as
a library that links to your code? I doubt it. Therefore, it would not
matter if it was released under LGPL or GPL. You could use it commercially
for whatever purpose you want.

- Kurt

 

[~kurt]

Not true, AFAIK. IANAL. If you break the terms of the GPL, you just
break the terms of the GPL. You get flamed of slashdot lots. That may or
may not be a big deal to you. You may then have further legal
proceedings against you. However, AFAIK, code linked to GPL and
published remains your code. I am not a lawyer.

Nvidia has been linking to the Linux kernel (GPL'ed) with closed source
code for ages now. I think the problem with enforcing such a thing is,
if given the choice between not supplying the module, or open sourcing
their code, they would probably choose to just not open source their
code.

- Kurt

 

[Guest]

"If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
"Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."

Well, the GPL license says it has to be released under GPL, but you can
break the GPL license.


You can still prosecute other people for infringing your copyright if
you yourself infringe copyright. I don't think there is any problem with
that at all. IANAL.

You don't think there is a problem with:
1) copyright violation
2) the fact that either your code code in the product is GPL or the
the end users does not have a valid license for the GPL library code
?

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Nvidia has been linking to the Linux kernel (GPL'ed) with closed source
code for ages now. I think the problem with enforcing such a thing is,
if given the choice between not supplying the module, or open sourcing
their code, they would probably choose to just not open source their
code.

The question about non-GPL Linux kernel modules has been discussed
a lot.

Many think that it is a violation of GPL, but due to the fact
that it is a gray area, the Linux community really want
the drivers and that Linus has always argued a
liberal interpretation of GPL then it has been allowed to go on.

I would not automatically assume that would apply to more
classic library usage.

Arne

 

[Tom Hawtin]

You don't think there is a problem with:
1) copyright violation
2) the fact that either your code code in the product is GPL or the
the end users does not have a valid license for the GPL library code
?

There is a problem with this statement:

"But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes
automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost
all commercial products."

The problem is that it is incorrect. Code "linked" to GPL code does
*not* become automatically covered by GPL.

I am not a lawyer.

Tom Hawtin

 

[Guest]

There is a problem with this statement:

"But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes
automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost
all commercial products."

The problem is that it is incorrect. Code "linked" to GPL code does
*not* become automatically covered by GPL.

Either it does or you violate the GPL license and thereby violate
copyright and your customers do the same.

Arne

 

[Philipp Taprogge]

Hi!

Thus spake ~kurt on 05/20/2007 08:26 AM:

Nvidia has been linking to the Linux kernel (GPL'ed) with closed source
code for ages now.

No it has not.
Nvidia uses a lightweight wrapper that is open source and links against the
kernel. This wrapper in turn uses nvidias closed source libs to do it's stuff.
That's how they try to get _around_ the GPL requirements. Whether or not this
is legal is still subject to some debate within the kernel community

The important thing, however, is why they do this:
Nvidia knows full well that code linking against GPL'el code has to be
released under the terms of the GPL as well (or not at all).
That's why you can not use GPL'ed code in any serious product, because
marketing a product (as opposed to marketing a service as MySQL, JBoss or
RedHat do) almost always means closed sources.


We must, however, keep two things separate: using (linking to) GPL'ed code is
one thing, using a GPL'ed software as part of a business environment is
something else.
You certainly can /use/, say, a MySQL database with a closed source enterprise
application that in turn is running in open source JBoss. What you /cannot/ do
is embed a MySQL /into/ your closed source application.

Regards,

Phil

 

[Philipp Taprogge]

Hi!

Thus spake Tom Hawtin on 05/20/2007 04:20 PM:

"But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes
automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost
all commercial products."

The problem is that it is incorrect. Code "linked" to GPL code does
*not* become automatically covered by GPL.

No, it does not. However, something very similar happens. The GPL requires you
to release your code linking to the GPL'ed code only under terms of the GPL.
So you can use GPL'ed code and then keep your work for yourself, use it
in-house or whatever. The moment you give it away to a third party, however,
the terms of the GPL apply, forcing you to release your "derived work" under
terms of the GPL yourself.
If you release your derived work under terms more restrictive that the GPL,
thus violating it's terms, you automagically lose your license to the GPL'ed
part of your work. This means plain and simple, that you may not release your
product at all without infringing the original author's copyright.

Lie it or loathe it, that's how the GPL sees things work.

Regards,

Phil

 

[Philipp Taprogge]

Hi!

Thus spake ~kurt on 05/20/2007 08:20 AM:

This is simply not true. If you intend to use a GPL'ed library, and link to
it, then yes, you must GPL your code to comply with the license. It can still
be freely used in commercial products.

That's what I meant by "freely". You can, of course, build a product on top of
GPL'ed code, but since this forces you to release the source code of that
product along with the binaries, you'll have a hard time selling that product.
Can be done, but not without some difficutlies.

This is why most libraries use the LGPL which does not require this.

It is indeed.

I have never used JBoss - but, as an application server, is it used as
a library that links to your code? I doubt it. Therefore, it would not
matter if it was released under LGPL or GPL. You could use it commercially
for whatever purpose you want.

Not true. First of all, JBoss is LGPL, so the whole discussion is virtual.
However...
Let's assume for a moment that JBoss were GPL'ed code. Then you could
certainly still use it as an application server, deploying your custom webapp
to it.
What you could /not/ do, is modify the JBoss itself, adding custem components
and then selling this modified JBoss as your own, closed source appserver.
That's what the GPL implies.
The same applies if you build a webapp that includes some jboss classes
directly (i.e. not via a open API like javax.ejb.* or similar). As soon as any
class in your application import something like org.jboss.whatever.class, your
app becomes a "derived work" of that library as defined in the GPL.

Regards,

Phil

 

[Lew]

That's why you can not use GPL'ed code in any serious product, because
marketing a product (as opposed to marketing a service as MySQL, JBoss or
RedHat do) almost always means closed sources.

I wouldn't include MySQL in this list. By some accounts the only legal way to
use it in commercial projects is to use their non-GPL, for-pay license.

In any event, I don't see how MySQL markets a service so much as they market a
product suite.

Also in any event, there are better open-source DMBSes about that do not
present any license conundrums. Personally I think MySQL is not good. Use
Postgre or Derby or Oracle or DB2.

 

[Philipp Taprogge]

Hi!

Thus spake Lew on 05/20/2007 08:33 PM:

I wouldn't include MySQL in this list. By some accounts the only legal
way to use it in commercial projects is to use their non-GPL, for-pay
license.

That heavily depends on what you mean by "use". If you "use" the DB to store
your application's data via JDBC (which is LGPL) or similar, you can use the
GPL'ed version.
If you use their api or embed the database itself into a commercial product,
you are screwed...

Also in any event, there are better open-source DMBSes about that do not
present any license conundrums.

Absolutely, but regardless of whether one includes MySQL in the above list, my
original point remains valid.

Regards,

Phil