[Pkg-ace-devel] Bug#697848: Bug#697848: NMU of ace ?

[Pau Garcia i Quiles]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Girard <thomas.g.girard at free.fr>wrote:

> On 22/01/2013 21:40, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> >> I'm more annoyed by #697848. The first two issues raised by Ansgar were
> >> not yet discussed with upstream because I need a confirmation on what
> >> is exactly the issue. If this is what I underlined in my reply then I
> >> am afraid we will have no easy solution except for moving ace to
> >> non-free.
> >
> > I am afraid I agree with Ansgar that the licence is rife with problems,
> > in particular the part where you are not allowed to remove functionality.
> > This can be read as forbidding to rip part of the source code and reuse
> > it in a different projet. Can it be DFSG-free if this is not allowed ?
>
> Agreed, but I believe Sun intent here was to ensure that
> standardization and implementation efforts (IDL to C++ and IIOP
> marshalling rules) do not get ruined by code modifications. Yes, I am
> interpreting.
>
> @Johnny: any opinion on this? See [1] for the context.
>

I'm afraid Johnny was not CC'ed in your mail, do not forget to add
pkg-ace-devel to the CC list


>
> > Different parts of the source code are covered by different licences. The
> > question for me was rather whether it is possible to keep a kernel ace
> > package containing only source code that is not covered by problematic
> > licences, and possibly move the rest into an ace-nonfree package. Are you
> > saying that this is not possible, and that the only possible action
> > would be to move everything to non-free? I don't know anything about the
> > structure of the ace package.
>
> ace source package consists in the following software:
>  - ACE, a C++ networking library
>  - TAO, a CORBA ORB built on top of ACE
>
> What is faulty here is TAO_IDL (idl to C++ mapping) and a piece of
> marshalling code (again, for TAO). So ACE can remain in main, but TAO
> has to go to non-free.
>
> This means two repackaging: one for ACE and another for TAO (not
> distributed stand-alone ATM) in non-free.
>

Can we try to get that code relicensed? I'd say Remedy, OCI and even the
very DOC Group are infringing the license themselves by redistributing and
modifying[*] this code.

[*] I have not checked the SVN repository yet but I'd bet the code has
suffered at least some modification since it was written and Addison Wesley
wrote that license

-- 
Pau Garcia i Quiles
http://www.elpauer.org
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ace-devel/attachments/20130122/fee7185a/attachment-0001.html>