[PolyORB-users] Questions about licensing after close scrutiny by Debian

[Ludovic Brenta]

Thomas Quinot <quinot at adacore.com> writes:
> * Ludovic Brenta, 2009-08-24 :
>
>> OK, since this license is very non-free these files cannot be distributed in
>> main; they have to go into a separate package in non-free or not be
>> distributed at all. I think we'll settle for not distributing them at all. 
>
> In that case what you'll be distributing will be a severely stripped
> down version of PolyORB (in particular it won't be usable at all as a
> CORBA implementation). If you decide to go that way I would appreciate
> that you change the name of your package so as to clarify that it is not
> a full distribution of PolyORB, but just a very limited part of it.

I'll ask the question to debian-legal first and keep you posted on the
outcome, if you are interested.  As far as Debian is concerned,
distributing a crippled polyorb or changing the name are acceptable;
breaking the law is not.

>> I'll investigate orbit and omniORB to see what their orig.tar.gz contains;
>> thanks for the pointers.  If they contain these non-free files, I will of
>> course file release-critical bugs against them.
>
> Well just look at subdirectory src/idl in ORBit2-2.14.17.orig.tar.gz,
> it has basically all of the OMG standard IDL sources, which are covered
> by the same terms as those I quoted for RTCORBA (see section B.3
> "license" in http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/08-01-04.pdf).

Thanks, I'll look into that.  I have already detected a policy violation
in the orbit2 package: it does not specify the correct license for the
.idl files, claiming they are under GPL.

>> P.S. Whether the name of a particular file in the repository appears in
>> another particular file named MANIFEST is irrelevant to its licensing terms. 
>> Any file present on your public Subversion repository is, by definition of
>> the word "public", published. AdaCore is therefore responsible for obeying
>> the licensing terms of every single file.  Similarly, Debian is responsible
>> (and Debian Developers are personally responsible) for publishing files; that
>> is why we take copyright issues so seriously and why our due diligence
>> process is so thorough.  I'm sorry if I sound pedantic with all that but I
>> wouldn't be an Ada programmer if I weren't a perfectionist control freak :)
>
> I do not understand what point you are trying to make. MANIFEST lists
> the file that are intended for inclusion in source distributions of
> PolyORB. As long as Debian distributes only files listed in MANIFEST,
> license terms covering files NOT listed there are irrelevant to Debian.

The point is that I think beyond just Debian; the law applies to
everyone, not just Debian.  If AdaCore redistributes the OMG's files
claiming the license is GPL, then AdaCore is breaking the law.  That was
my point, and I hope you take this as friendly
advice/concern/question/whatever, not as an attack on you.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.