Hi,
Please CC your responses since I am not subscribed to the debian-legal
mailing list.
I was looking at the omniORB licenses and comparing them to TAO's since
both ORBs have some Sun code in them. OmniORB has some code based on
Sun's IDL Compiler Front End (CFE) version 1.3. TAO has some source
code based on the very same Sun code.
I have a few questions:
1. The omniORB Debian package does not ship the Sun `COPYING.CFE'
distribution terms with it. The Sun distribution terms
stipulate that the distribution terms must be shipped with
the distribution. Doesn't this mean that COPYING.CFE should go
into the omniORB Debian package?
2. Both omniORB and TAO have very similar distribution terms from Sun:
omniORB (from src/tool/omniidl2/COPYING.CFE in the source)
-------
The Interface Definition Language Compiler Front End (CFE) is made
available for your use provided that you include this license and
copyright notice on all media and documentation and the software
program in which this product is incorporated in whole or part. You
may copy and extend functionality (but may not remove functionality)
of the Interface Definition Language CFE without charge, but you are
not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as
part of a product or program developed by you or with the express
written consent of Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun").
TAO (from COPYING.SUN in the TAO source and the Debian TAO package)
---
You may copy, modify, distribute, or sublicense the LICENCED PRODUCT
without charge as part of a product or software program developed by
you, so long as you preserve the functionality of interoperating with
the Object Management Group's "Internet Inter-ORB Protocol" version
one. However, any uses other than the foregoing uses shall require
the express written consent of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Both of these distribution terms are very similar. TAO had to go into
non-free due to the "so long as you preserve the functionality" clause
in the license. OmniORB has a "You may copy and extend functionality (but
may not remove functionality)" clause. Aren't both of these clauses
basically saying the same thing? If so, shouldn't we re-evaluate
either TAO's status and OmniORB's compatibility with the GPL?
Guys, I'm not looking to start another flame war. If you guys decide
that TAO should stay in non-free then I have no problem with that.
However, I do believe that we need to examine OmniORB's status more
closely, IMHO.
Thanks for any clarification,
-Ossama
______________________________________________________________________
Ossama Othman <othman@cs.wustl.edu>
58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
Attachment:
pgpIzpAG6ftSP.pgp
Description: PGP signature