-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ludovic Brenta a écrit :
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
Le mardi 25 août 2009 à 02:52 +0200, Ludovic Brenta a écrit :
The source package orbit2_2.14.17.orig.tar.gz shipped by Debian contains
the following files that concern me:
src/idl/CORBA_PIDL/CORBA_Request.idl
src/idl/CORBA_PIDL/pseudo_orb.idl
[snip]
The debian/copyright file in the package does not explicitly state a
license for those files but implies that the license is the GPL. The
package is in main.
My opinion is that the headers themselves are not subject to copyright.
They are just the formal description of a specification, there is
nothing creative in them. However the comments are, so maybe we have to
strip the comments from those files.
Thanks.
Since:
- the spec specifically refers to the .idl files
- the .idl files are derived works from the spec,
I still think that the .idl files are copyrighted and subject to the
same license as the spec.
However, your interpretation is probably closer to the intended purpose
of these files. The OMG failed to make their intentions clear. I don't
think they understood copyright law themselves since they speak of
using the specification and conforming software to the
specification, neither of which are even concepts in copyright law,
which concerns itself only with distribution, modification and derived
works. So, the OMG's failure to clarify the license for the .idl files
is not surprising.
It seems to me that if the authors of a CORBA implementation choose to
distribute .idl files (even though this is not a requirement of a
conforming implementation), they can do so only if they are the authors
of the .idl files; and if they are the authors of the .idl files then
they can choose whatever license they want under the permission to use
the specification which I understand as permission to derive works
from the copyrighted specification. This may or may not be the case
for the authors of orbit2 but the authors of PolyORB have already stated
that they redistribute the OMG's .idl files (and they even pointed me to
the OMG license). I think such redistribution is illegal.
Any other opinion?
Hi,
I'm sorry I can't help on such problems. It is very far from my
understanding. Can't we just use the testsuite apart from package
building to be sure that our packaging is OK and then distribute a
version without the .idl files ? Testing should be our duty and not for
the buildd machines ?
My two cents... xavier
PS:any comment on my last changes (minors) ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkqffMMACgkQVIZi0A5BZF7+zQCgxCwGH2fKlCZGdeFyXhYF4tF5
ATsAn3j9aF86b9IS1Rd/80URBut0pNdx
=et0p
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
