On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 07:23:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As long as it's still possible to ALSO support IIOP 1.0 with the
> > modified version, then there's no problem wrt the Sun license. If you
> > want to remove the IIOP support completely, then
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People can certainly modify TAO to support any standard they want (in
> fact, we're planning on doing this to support a DCOM/CORBA bridge
> shortly, as well as a wide variety of protocols other than IIOP 1.0).
> As long as it's still possible to ALSO suppo
the main distribution.
Thanks,
-Ossama
- Forwarded message from "Douglas C. Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-Authentication-Warning: tango.cs.wustl.edu: schmidt owned process doing -bs
To: Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TAO license - Debian misinterpr
Ossama Othman writes:
> What if TAO code fragments could be used in other code besides TAO,
> probably forcing the other code to conform to the standard? Would this
> be "free" by your definition?
Of course not. What if I wanted to use the code in a circuit simulator or
a word processor?
--
Joh
Ossama writes:
> It so happens that patches don't become official until they go through
> Doug Schmidt's research group.
And if they aren't official they may not be legally distributed.
> If this isn't acceptable perhaps someone should tell Linus he shouldn't
> be the only one to make Linux patch
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. Ot
Hi,
> > "Free" by the definition of the GPL.
>
> No, DFSG-Free, which is the kind of freeness we are discussing.
Thanks for the clarification.
> If you think that the GPL is not free enough, go ahead, you may propose a
> modification to the DFSG that explicitly says that we don't want any GPLed
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Hi Santiago,
>
> > I can still write free software using GPLed code fragments.
> > I can't write free software using TAO fragments, because TAO itself
> > forbids me to do so. I think there is a big difference.
>
> "Free" by the definition of the GPL.
Note: I'm not a debian developer, but I have an interest in licensing issues
and monitor this list. And for once I have a few things to throw into a
discussion...
Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Santiago wrote:
> > This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
> >
> > People shoul
Hi,
> Well, going tangent :-), the GPL does not "force" you to do anything:
>
> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> distribute the Program or its derivative works.
It was my understanding th
Hi Santiago,
> I can still write free software using GPLed code fragments.
> I can't write free software using TAO fragments, because TAO itself
> forbids me to do so. I think there is a big difference.
"Free" by the definition of the GPL. As you may well know, not everyone
agrees that the GPL i
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Santiago wrote:
> > This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
> >
> > People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
> > If they do not have this freedom, TAO is not free enough.
>
> Hmm, what about the GPL (going off o
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Santiago wrote:
> > This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
> >
> > People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
> > If they do not have this freedom, TAO is not free enough.
>
> Hmm, what about the GPL (going off o
Hi,
Santiago wrote:
> This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
>
> People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
> If they do not have this freedom, TAO is not free enough.
Hmm, what about the GPL (going off on a tangent, I know)? The GPL forces
someone who us
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ossama Othman wrote:
> - Doug writes:
> [snip]
> ...why would anyone want to distribute TAO under a different
> name?
This is not a matter of "breaking the standard" [*]
People should be able to modify TAO to conform to *another* standard.
If they do not have this freedom, T
If they allow code to be excerpted from TAO and reused in other
free software which isn't labeled as TAO then that's fine.
At the moment, it's not clear that they allow this.
--
Raul
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My TAO packages recently got rejected for inclusing into the
Hi,
My TAO packages recently got rejected for inclusing into the main unstable
archive since it was believed that the copyrights prevented it from being
free.
I contacted Doug Schmidt and David Brownwell, the _authors_ of the TAO
licensing terms, about this issue. They maintain that TAO _is_ fre
17 matches
Mail list logo
