On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 18:56 -0400, Ilguiz Latypov wrote: > Is the ORBit2 library covered by GPL or LGPL? > > We are writing a proprietary application that currently links > against ORBit2. If ORBit2 is strictly GPL, we would be required > to disclose the source code. (A positively-sounding version: we > would be freeing our code for peer review and adoption). > > There are both COPYING (GPL) and COPYING.LIB (LGPL) files in the > top-level ORBit2 CVS directory. The linc2 subdirectory contains > the file COPYING with LGPL in it. I assume this means that linc2 > is under LGPL. The terms of linking against libORBit-2.so are > unclear. I have to agree that the licensing terms are unclear. I have only found one core ORB file (src/orb/dynamic/dynany.c) with an explicit licensing clause (LGPL). Explicit licensing clauses are found in: src/orb/dynamic/dynany.c (LGPL) src/services/imodule/*.[ch] (LGPL) src/services/name/name-client.c (GPL) src/services/name/orbit-name-server.c (LGPL) src/idl-compiler/orbit-idl-backend.[ch] (LGPL) src/idl-compiler/orbit-idl-driver.c (GPL) src/idl-compiler/orbit-idl-main.c (GPL) No other files have a license statement as far as I can see. The existence of the topmost LGPL file in the linc2 directory indicates that the intention is that linc2 is LGPL even though no source files explicitly says so. The linc2/linc.spec.in is explicit though, so linc2 should be LGPL, but I had preferred an explicit statement to that effect in all source files. I think you can safely assume (IANAL and one might disagree) that the intention is that all ORBit2 *libraries* are LGPL, but the copyright holders of each and every source file should, IMHO, put an explicit license statement into the file to avoid any ambiguities or doubt. Best regards, jules -- Jules Colding PGP Public Key: 6266E7B7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part