Re: TAO license - Debian misinterpretation
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Santiago wrote:
> > This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
> > People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
> > If they do not have this freedom, TAO is not free enough.
> Hmm, what about the GPL (going off on a tangent, I know)? The GPL forces
> someone who uses GPLed code fragments to change his software's own
> licensing terms otherwise the code fragments can't be used. This doesn't
> seem to be "free enough," IMHO. The GPL places one heck of a restriction
> on GPLed code.
Well, going tangent :-), the GPL does not "force" you to do anything:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
> TAO has the "conforming to a standard" restriction, but it
> does not disallow anyone from modifying the TAO source as long as it
> conforms to the IIOP 1.0 standard.
Well, everything I can say is that TAO restriction is not DFSG-compliant:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form _only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
The "only" above means that every other restriction, like "being conform
to a given standard" in the TAO case, is not an allowed.
"06e4012d399f42a5b1bb6f81c9c12f73" (a truly random sig)