[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CORBA
From: |
Andrew Haley |
Subject: |
Re: CORBA |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:32:13 +0000 |
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.
- Re: CORBA, Robert Schuster, 2005/03/01
- Re: CORBA, Meskauskas Audrius, 2005/03/02
- Re: CORBA, Sascha Brawer, 2005/03/02
- Re: CORBA, Andrew Haley, 2005/03/02
- Re: CORBA, Stuart Ballard, 2005/03/02
- Re: CORBA,
Andrew Haley <=
- Re: CORBA, Mark Wielaard, 2005/03/02
- Re: CORBA, Stephen Crawley, 2005/03/02
- Re: CORBA, Dalibor Topic, 2005/03/02
- Re: CORBA, Stephen Crawley, 2005/03/03
- Re: CORBA, Dalibor Topic, 2005/03/03
- Re: CORBA, Mark Wielaard, 2005/03/03
- Re: CORBA, Dalibor Topic, 2005/03/03
- Re: CORBA, Andrew Haley, 2005/03/03
- Re: CORBA, Mark Wielaard, 2005/03/03
- Re: CORBA, Jeff Bailey, 2005/03/03