On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 07:23:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Ossama Othman <ossama@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu> wrote: > > As long as it's still possible to ALSO support IIOP 1.0 with the > > modified version, then there's no problem wrt the Sun license. If you > > want to remove the IIOP support completely, then you'll need to check > > with Sun to make sure that's ok. > So, if someone takes TAO code and puts it in a CORBA client, that client > must also have all the functionality of the ORB? Only if it includes Sun's IIOP code, by the sound of it. This sounds like free software that makes use of a not-quite-free library, which sounds like it's statically linked. Building the package so there's an iiop.deb and a tao.deb would let iiop go into non-free and tao go into contrib, and when tao supports plugins, let tao go into main (since it could then only suggest: iiop). Or at least, that's my impression. AFAICT, this passes the DFSG v1 as is, but doesn't pass Ian's proposed revision. Is this correct? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Attachment:
pgp1UuP9t2H4o.pgp
Description: PGP signature