Re: Bug#40937: omniorb: Freeness?
On Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 11:45:27 -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> OmniORB and TAO both are licensed as Free -- GPL/LGPL combinations by
> their respective creators. Consequently, omniorb and TAO have
> historically been deemed "Free".
>
> However, we recently realized that the following licensing terms
> were present in the IDL compiler, which contains some SUN Microsystems
> code:
Is the IDL compiler a separate part of the OmniORB and TAO packages, or do
they contain GPL-ed changes for it? (If it's the latter, I think it's the
same regrettable situation as KDE, i.e. not redistributable in binary form)
> The obvious problem with the above is that the redistribution terms are
> not DFSG-compatible.
Indeed.
> I originally thought to put omniorb and omniorb-doc in "contrib" and
> the devel part in "non-free". Unfortunately, our system does not allow
> a "non-free" source package to create free and non-free parts. So I
> ended up placing everything in "non-free".
Putting the IDL compiler in a source package of its own could fix this.
> Happily, this is a temporary state of affairs, as ORL (creators of
> omniORB) are rewriting the IDL compiler from scratch. The new version
> will not include any SUN code, and will be entirely DFSG-free.
Good.
> I should also point out that the OmniORB folks are a bit put out that
> we are calling their product non-free. I would like to be able to get
> at least parts of it back into "main" in the very near future.
Please use separate source packages for the free and non-free parts then.
Ray
--
Cyberspace, a final frontier. These are the voyages of my messages,
on a lightspeed mission to explore strange new systems and to boldly go
where no data has gone before.
Reply to: