[omniORB] omniORB licensing: Too strict for real life?

[Helge Penne]

David Riddoch wrote:

> Helge,
>
> I am sorry, but the licence has to stick.  I expect that you have invested
> a significant amount of time developing your application using omniORB, so
> it really would be a shame if you had to stop using it.  I would like to
> suggest an alternative solution:
>
> There is no reason why you can't do your own implementation of the naming
> service.  It is quite a simple specification, so probably less work than
> migrating to an alternative orb.  If your platform/application doesn't
> require a persistent naming service, then it becomes really easy --
> reading and writing the log file is most of the work in omniNames!
>
> I hope this 'solution' is good enough.
> Regards,
> David
>

This is indeed the "escape route" that I had in mind.  The current modification
of the Naming Service does not even create a log file, as persistence is not
required at all.  The effort required to reverse engineer such a simplified
Naming Service is probably not very significant.

One potential problem remains, however: The OS might force us to link statically
with omniORB, as the support for dynamic link libraries is somewhat limited.  Can
we still distribute the application without providing application source code or
complete object files, or will we run into license confilcts in this area too?

- Helge