On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Girard <thomas.g.gir...@free.fr>wrote:
> 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. > I'm afraid Johnny was not CC'ed in your mail, do not forget to add pkg-ace-devel to the CC list > > > 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. > Can we try to get that code relicensed? I'd say Remedy, OCI and even the very DOC Group are infringing the license themselves by redistributing and modifying[*] this code. [*] I have not checked the SVN repository yet but I'd bet the code has suffered at least some modification since it was written and Addison Wesley wrote that license -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
