--- Iain Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am concerned whether a Corba interface can be used by non-free
software to
circumvent the freedoms and requirements of the GPL license.
This is a similar issue as with the introspector.
I dont aggree with your assessment any more.
I
realise mere
--- Iain Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL FAQ clarifications from FSF attempt to extend the definition
of what
constitutes a derived work:
But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough,
exchanging
complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to
--- David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 14 September 2003 09:00 am, Iain Barker wrote:
Free Software should not be afraid of competition. If someone comes
along and serverizes the software, we should not be wringing our
hands, but busy writing Free clients instead.
You could
Iain Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A proprietary vendor could create non-free software that functionally would
amount to a derived work, without actually making a derived work within the
meaning of copyright law. Would this break the spirit of the GPL while
complying with its terms,
On Sun Sep 14 01:54:35 EDT 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is an example of Corba 'serverizing':
A GPL application is modified by a vendor of non-free software, who adds a
Corba server API to the application. The vendor releases the source code to
the GPL application and modifications
David Presotto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So does that mean that any program interaction with GPL code is considered
reducing the freedom of the codebase? Why single out CORBA? Why not any
RPC mechanism like SOAP? How about CGI-BINs? Where does one draw the
incredibly fuzzy line?
On Sunday 14 September 2003 09:00 am, Iain Barker wrote:
Yes, Corba is just one example, any similar RPC mechanism can be
substituted for the same purpose. Anything that essentially allows
two otherwise distinct and separate programs to make use of each
others functionality via some type of
7 matches
Mail list logo
