Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMHO, Debian is misinterpreting TAO's licensing terms.
I disagree. > - David Brownwell writes: > No new permission is necessary, unless you want to drop support for > IIOP 1.0; that was the only real constraint that I had Sun put on > that license. Otherwise, it just protects Sun from lawsuits. [ ... ] > - Doug writes: > Please point out to Richard that the license is simply there to ensure > that TAO continues to conform to the IIOP *STANDARD*. Imagine if gcc had a licence which only permitted you to make changes to the compiler as long as it continued to support nothing but ISO C. Would that be a DFSG free compiler? > ...why would anyone want to distribute TAO under a different > name? Because the authors (or whatever they are) all got run over by a bus in a horrible freak accident? Because the authors all became insane at the same time and started refusing any patches? [These are hypotheticals, no offence is meant] There are always reasons to want to be able to fork, as any user of emacs knows. -- James
