[PolyORB-users] polyorb license

[Kellogg, Oliver, MSOP22]

IMHO precluding GMGPL from all versions of PolyORB may discourage its use.

Oliver

-- not speaking for my employer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: polyorb-users-bounces at lists.adacore.com 
> [mailto:polyorb-users-bounces at lists.adacore.com] On Behalf Of 
> xavier grave
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:41 AM
> To: Simon Wright
> Cc: PolyORB
> Subject: Re: [PolyORB-users] polyorb license
> 
> 
> Le mardi 22 avril 2008 à 20:51 +0100, Simon Wright a écrit :
> > > Le mardi 22 avril 2008 à 14:09 +0200, Thomas Quinot a écrit :
> > >> License notices found in files do not have any specific legal
> > >> significance.
> > 
> > This is certainly a claim that has been made by AdaCore but 
> I don't  
> > recall a statement that it was the opinion of a qualified 
> person or a  
> > statement about jurisdiction. It would seem that the standard  
> > practice of including copyright notices in files -- and the 
> standard  
> > AdaCore practice of physically removing the GMGPL extension 
> -- would  
> > go against the claim. But IANAL either .. and anyway there 
> can be no  
> > question about the status of current releases!
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry to come again about this subject :)
> 
> I have made a patch (file joined) that remove all GMGPL stuff in
> the .ad[sb] files.
> 
> I have done so to have files in accordance with the package 
> license and
> avoiding so questions from people that can using the package in the
> future (I hope they will be plenty since polyorb has many "fun"
> features :) ).
> 
> There is still a little licensing problem in the documentation :
> the file polyorb_ug.texi includes gfdl.texi
> Do you think I can also patch this file in order to have full GPL
> coherency ? (GFDL enable "invariant" sections and not GPL)
> The documentation is one of the first source users will use 
> to determine
> license so...
> 
> Cordially, xavier
>