Stuart Ballard writes: > I made a blog entry back in December that's very relevant to this > discussion, where I investigated the license on JacORB in particular. > > http://sab39.dev.netreach.com/Blog/12?vobId=129&pm=18 > > The problem is that it seems that most ORBs, including Free ones, > consider the source code provided by the OMG to be "free enough" and > don't bother reimplementing it. However, this source is under a > "freely redistributable but unmodifiable" license, which isn't free > enough for Classpath by a long shot.
The problem is that the OMG code is both a specification *and* an implementation; specs perhaps should be unmodifiable but implementations certainly not. It's hard to know what to do. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
