[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:06:09 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Benjamin <> writes:

> Currently we use interfaces (i.e. stubs) where the non GPL code is
> used so this is possible (however no GPL alternative code exists and
> the interfaces would need to be implemented by the deriving code
> developers, this should be reasonably trivial as it is database access
> and logging).
> The problem lies that one of the future project goals will make heavy
> use of Spring (Apache licensed) libraries in changing the foundations
> of the software. Spring is needed to save a *huge* amount of
> refactoring and implementation work. (Spring is a framework of
> libraries).
> If what you say below is true regarding stubs and pure GPL
> alternatives then to cause the least amount of pain and
> inconvenience for the developers of the project the GPL would have
> to be avoided. I see no reason why the design of the software should
> change to accommodate the licence (i.e. providing interfaces, making
> the integral foundation of the code modular - all extra work,
> especially as Spring is huge), or why the wheel should be reinvented
> when technically Spring is also free and open source.

Looks like you did not understand what I had been saying.  As the
author of the stuff to be licensed, you are free to choose the GPL
with exceptions, accommodating whatever additional libraries you like.
However, this will mean that as long as your project as a whole
requires GPL-incompatible libraries, that GPLed code without such an
exception can't be taken from elsewhere and integrated into your
project.  But this will be the case regardless of how you license your
software, so it does not speak against GPL with exception per se.

> Again I'm on the fence with GPL and CPL. I like the assurances of
> GPL, but its ambiguity is making me favour the CPL.

The GPL is not ambiguous merely because Alexander Terekhov is trolling
this newsgroup.

> I guess at the end of the day all I have to go on is the mostly pro
> GPL answers on here, (no answer yet from GNU) or the assurances of
> the CPL which has the backing of IBM.

Uh, the GPL also has the backing of IBM.  It's substantial for their
counterarguments in their current multi-million dollar lawsuit with

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]