Re: IDL dependency tracking

[<dahaverk rockwellcollins com>]

>On 15Aug2001 12:00PM (-0500), dahaverk@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just thought I would throw in my 2cents on this.   I don't want the
license
>> in anyway to cause someone that is developing software to have to give
away
>> the source to their application unless they want to.    Since the IDL
>> stubs/skels are included into a delivered application, any license on
the
>> generated code should fall under something more like the "Artistic"
>> license.  The code for the IDL compiler etc should be GPL'ed.  This way,
>> any changes or improvements to the IDL compiler and Stubs/Skels can be
>> freely given back to the community, and the Programmer/Company retains
the
>> rights to the Application code they develop.
>>
>> Of course usage of the GNU "gettext"  in ORBit already corrupts this
idea.
>> I can already see that some company lawyers will have developers
re-write
>> (re-invent) some Open-Source software to avoid having to give away the
>> company "Domain Knowledge".
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> We were actually talking about the license in the individual source
> files, not the license on generated code. But I think you are right
> that as with bison or flex, we should be explicit about the fact that
> generated code is *not* GPL.
>
> - Maciej

It would be beneficial if there were something in several places that
explicitly deliniates what the GPL applies to.
Having seen an opinion from a Lawyer in the past (4-6years ago) on GNU
software, they seem to think of the GNU license in the
worst possible light.  (It was something I vaguely remember floating around
one of the news groups I was in at the time).

BTW, these are my opinions only....  Not that of my employer.

-Dave