-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ludovic Brenta a écrit : > Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes: >> Le mardi 25 août 2009 à 02:52 +0200, Ludovic Brenta a écrit : >>> The source package orbit2_2.14.17.orig.tar.gz shipped by Debian contains >>> the following files that concern me: >>> >>> src/idl/CORBA_PIDL/CORBA_Request.idl >>> src/idl/CORBA_PIDL/pseudo_orb.idl >> [snip] >> >>> The debian/copyright file in the package does not explicitly state a >>> license for those files but implies that the license is the GPL. The >>> package is in main. >> My opinion is that the headers themselves are not subject to copyright. >> They are just the formal description of a specification, there is >> nothing creative in them. However the comments are, so maybe we have to >> strip the comments from those files. > > Thanks. > > Since: > - the spec specifically refers to the .idl files > - the .idl files are derived works from the spec, > > I still think that the .idl files are copyrighted and subject to the > same license as the spec. > > However, your interpretation is probably closer to the intended purpose > of these files. The OMG failed to make their intentions clear. I don't > think they understood copyright law themselves since they speak of > "using the specification" and "conforming software to the > specification", neither of which are even concepts in copyright law, > which concerns itself only with distribution, modification and derived > works. So, the OMG's failure to clarify the license for the .idl files > is not surprising. > > It seems to me that if the authors of a CORBA implementation choose to > distribute .idl files (even though this is not a requirement of a > conforming implementation), they can do so only if they are the authors > of the .idl files; and if they are the authors of the .idl files then > they can choose whatever license they want under the "permission to use > the specification" which I understand as "permission to derive works > from the copyrighted specification". This may or may not be the case > for the authors of orbit2 but the authors of PolyORB have already stated > that they redistribute the OMG's .idl files (and they even pointed me to > the OMG license). I think such redistribution is illegal. > > Any other opinion? >
Hi, I'm sorry I can't help on such problems. It is very far from my understanding. Can't we just use the testsuite apart from package building to be sure that our packaging is OK and then distribute a version without the .idl files ? Testing should be our duty and not for the buildd machines ? My two cents... xavier PS:any comment on my last changes (minors) ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqffMMACgkQVIZi0A5BZF7+zQCgxCwGH2fKlCZGdeFyXhYF4tF5 ATsAn3j9aF86b9IS1Rd/80URBut0pNdx =et0p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
