Re: JBoss

Tom Hawtin wrote:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:

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.

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

Arne
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how can patents affect linux?
    ... ]> impediments to the distribution, then the GPL also withdraws permission. ... for example copyright law in Canada. ... Copyright violation is tort ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: When will Betov come clean on GPL ?
    ... > a copyright violation. ... Or a license violation :-) (I'm quite sure many people feel that GPL ... Given that RMS isn't too happy with the proliferation of licenses, ... Still the RPL *could* be in copyright violation if they lifted text ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Problem with initializing a class object
    ... By removing the original copyright statement and then publishing the ... code you have committed a copyright violation. ... distributed under the GPL, so you have violated the GPL, too. ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: Problem with initializing a class object
    ... By removing the original copyright statement and then publishing the ... code you have committed a copyright violation. ... distributed under the GPL, so you have violated the GPL, too. ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: JBoss
    ... Arne Vajhøj wrote: ... the end users does not have a valid license for the GPL library code ... Tom Hawtin ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)