Re: IDL dependency tracking
- From: <dahaverk rockwellcollins com>
- To: orbit-list gnome org
- Cc: dahaverk rockwellcollins com, orbit-list gnome org,Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>,Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>, gnome-2-0-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: IDL dependency tracking
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:51:59 -0500
>On 15Aug2001 12:00PM (-0500), email@example.com wrote:
>> Just thought I would throw in my 2cents on this. I don't want the
>> in anyway to cause someone that is developing software to have to give
>> the source to their application unless they want to. Since the IDL
>> stubs/skels are included into a delivered application, any license on
>> 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
>> rights to the Application code they develop.
>> Of course usage of the GNU "gettext" in ORBit already corrupts this
>> I can already see that some company lawyers will have developers
>> (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.
] [Thread Prev