Re: TAO license - Debian misinterpretation
> I can still write free software using GPLed code fragments.
> I can't write free software using TAO fragments, because TAO itself
> forbids me to do so. I think there is a big difference.
"Free" by the definition of the GPL. As you may well know, not everyone
agrees that the GPL is a truly free license. Suppose I don't want my
software to be licensed under the GPL (hypothetically speaking)? What if
my license makes my software as free as you'd like but doesn't have the
GPL's restrictions? Why should I be _forced_ to use the GPL? GPLed
software is free in terms of distribution but _not free_ in terms of
giving you a choice. It dictates how your software should be licensed.
TAO's restriction simply forces you to conform to the standard.
OTOH, I am not sure whether or not TAO code fragments can be used in other
code besides TAO. I'll find out. What if TAO code fragments could be
used in other code besides TAO, probably forcing the other code to conform
to the standard? Would this be "free" by your definition?
> > I can't imagine why anyone would want
> > to deviate from the standard and begin yet another development fork.
> I can, but if you can't imagine and the authors can't imagine, why don't
> they remove this restriction from the license? ;-)
IMHO, I just don't think that TAO's license is that restrictive. I would
really like to make TAO a part of the main distribution so I am trying to
make both the TAO developers and Debian see eye to eye. It doesn't seem
to be working but I am trying.
Ossama Othman <email@example.com>
58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26