29Apr/01Off
New XML-RPC for Java
There's a new XML-RPC implementation for Java, called Marquée. Apparently it is somewhat based on Hannes' implementation, but it also includes a cool object serialization framework and "dynamic proxying", which requires Java 1.3.
Doh, it's GPL'd.
Hannes' isn't, which makes it much more appealing to me. What does it mean if I subclass something in marquee.xmlrpc? Do I have to GPL my code? Could someone please clarify this for me? I don't like gotchas.
About Jim Roepcke
No description. Please complete your profile.Roepcke Computing Solutions
Archive Calendar
Blogroll
Saved Searches
- WebObjects on Twitter Tweets about WebObjects (without all the iTunes store tweet spam)
Willing to Fail
WebObjects book
Badges
Recent tweets
- @wycats githubissues.heroku.com uses mustache (with Cappuccino) in reply to wycats 6 hrs ago
- @mgargano i don't know but it's right in his front yard! in reply to mgargano 9 hrs ago
- Watching the original double rainbow video for the first time (finally had to figure out wtf you guys were on about). It's... so intense. 9 hrs ago
- More updates...
April 30th, 2001 - 10:49
IANAL, ok?
The source indicates that it is licensed under the terms of the Gnu General Public License, version 2, which will stipulate that any derivative works be subject to the same licensing. I think most people would agree that a subclass would constitute a derivative work, given that Marquee is GPL, and not LGPL (which stipulates the use as a library is _not_ derivative work). Technically, you could subclass Marquee and release your work under another license, so long as that license is compatible with the GPL.
I’d suggest two options:
– You can ask the copyright holder (in this case, the author, although often in GPL’d works, the FSF asks authors to assign copyright to them) to license the work to you under different terms; they are free to do so, and the new license need not have the source redistribution requirements
- Ask the copyright holder to re-release the work under the LGPL, rather than the GPL. Since this appears to be a class intended to be used as a part of a whole, rather than a standalone work, it seems to me that the LGPL would be a more appropriate license choice here. Once the work is available under LGPL, you could use it as a library in your non-GPL’d code.
April 30th, 2001 - 11:14
From my *very* limited knowledge about the GPL you do need to release any code written againts a GPL’d library as GPL.
There’s (or was?) also a version of the GPL called Library GPL which didn’t force you to GPL code written againts theses libs. I think that license now has changed to the Lesser GNU license and the change was made specifically to revoke this possibility of GPL code coming to use for proprietary developers.
this is somewhat speculation on my part, maybe someone can clear things up ? or give a more certain statement ?