 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / May 2007JBoss
Hi, can I use JBoss AS and Seam commercial? Thanx! Hi! > 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 > can I use JBoss AS and Seam commercial? Yes. It is open source. Arne Hi! > 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 >> Yes. >> >> It is open source. > > 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 > 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 >> But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes >> automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 >>> But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes >>> automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 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 >>>> But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes >>>> automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL "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 >>>>> But I know what you mean - code "linked" to GPL code becomes >>>>> automatically covered by GPL and that is unacceptable for almost [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 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 > 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 >> You don't think there is a problem with: >> 1) copyright violation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 Hi! > "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 > 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 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 Hi! > 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 > 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.  SignatureLew Hi! > 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 > Hi! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you use their api or embed the database itself into a commercial product, > you are screwed... The MySQL JDBC driver is GPL licensed NOT LGPL, so you can't base a non GPL commercial product on using that driver. On the other hand end users can use it with a non GPL product. Mark Thornton Hi! > The MySQL JDBC driver is GPL licensed NOT LGPL, so you can't base a non > GPL commercial product on using that driver. On the other hand end users > can use it with a non GPL product. You are right, of course. It was the MM MySQL driver that was/is LGPL. Regards, Phil >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > way to use it in commercial projects is to use their non-GPL, for-pay > license. That is just FUD from them. > In any event, I don't see how MySQL markets a service so much as they > market a product suite. http://www.mysql.com/products/enterprise/support.html "MySQL Enterprise includes 24x7 Production Support that helps you deliver continuous availability for your production database applications. MySQL Production Support gives you priority access with fast response times to assist you with the development, deployment and management of your MySQL applications. MySQL Enterprise gives you the flexibility to choose a service level (Basic, Silver, Gold, Platinum) that matches your requirements" I think that is what they make money on. Arne > 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 I realize this, but in the end it all links as one application, which, according to the GPL the last time I read it, means it is in violation of the GPL. I really thought much of the wrapper was necessary to allow the user to build a module that would load for the large variety and versions of kernels out there (every time I change my kernel, I need to rebuild the Nvidia driver). I didn't think it was meant as a way to sidestep the license - I could be wrong on that, of course. There was a push by some of the Linux kernel developers recently to modify Linux so that it would not only warn the user that "dirty" code was being loaded (as it does now), but disable that code after a certain period of time (I think it was a year). Linus stepped in and basically told him his kernel was not going to be used to further their own "political" views on how software should be licensed. - 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 Hi! >> 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. 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 > 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. I never said you could. I believe we are using the word "use" differently. When I say use, I'm not talking about incorporating it into my own code. - Kurt Hi! >> 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. > > I never said you could. I believe we are using the word "use" differently. > When I say use, I'm not talking about incorporating it into my own code. I see you don't. But that's just the problem with this license issue. It all depends on what you mean by "use" and the OPs initial question did not make that clear. Regards, Phil Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.