On 22/01/2013 21:40, Ralf Treinen wrote: >> I'm more annoyed by #697848. The first two issues raised by Ansgar were >> not yet discussed with upstream because I need a confirmation on what >> is exactly the issue. If this is what I underlined in my reply then I >> am afraid we will have no easy solution except for moving ace to >> non-free. > > I am afraid I agree with Ansgar that the licence is rife with problems, > in particular the part where you are not allowed to remove functionality. > This can be read as forbidding to rip part of the source code and reuse > it in a different projet. Can it be DFSG-free if this is not allowed ?
Agreed, but I believe Sun intent here was to ensure that standardization and implementation efforts (IDL to C++ and IIOP marshalling rules) do not get ruined by code modifications. Yes, I am interpreting. @Johnny: any opinion on this? See [1] for the context. > Different parts of the source code are covered by different licences. The > question for me was rather whether it is possible to keep a kernel ace > package containing only source code that is not covered by problematic > licences, and possibly move the rest into an ace-nonfree package. Are you > saying that this is not possible, and that the only possible action > would be to move everything to non-free? I don't know anything about the > structure of the ace package. ace source package consists in the following software: - ACE, a C++ networking library - TAO, a CORBA ORB built on top of ACE What is faulty here is TAO_IDL (idl to C++ mapping) and a piece of marshalling code (again, for TAO). So ACE can remain in main, but TAO has to go to non-free. This means two repackaging: one for ACE and another for TAO (not distributed stand-alone ATM) in non-free. Thanks, Regards, Thomas [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=697848#10 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
