Re: TAO license - Debian misinterpretation
Ossama Othman <othman@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu> writes:
> IMHO, Debian is misinterpreting TAO's licensing terms.
I disagree.
> - David Brownwell writes:
> No new permission is necessary, unless you want to drop support for
> IIOP 1.0; that was the only real constraint that I had Sun put on
> that license. Otherwise, it just protects Sun from lawsuits.
[ ... ]
> - Doug writes:
> Please point out to Richard that the license is simply there to ensure
> that TAO continues to conform to the IIOP *STANDARD*.
Imagine if gcc had a licence which only permitted you to make changes
to the compiler as long as it continued to support nothing but ISO C.
Would that be a DFSG free compiler?
> ...why would anyone want to distribute TAO under a different
> name?
Because the authors (or whatever they are) all got run over by a bus
in a horrible freak accident? Because the authors all became insane
at the same time and started refusing any patches? [These are
hypotheticals, no offence is meant] There are always reasons to want
to be able to fork, as any user of emacs knows.
--
James
Reply to: