[omniORB] licensing

[Duncan Grisby]

On Friday 7 September, Richard Hardgrave wrote:

> 	I will be incorporating omniORB, as a shared library, into our
> Test System Controller application, which is proprietary.  I have changed
> nothing in the library and will be distributing it as stipulated in the
> LGPL.  Perhaps I'm just thinking too hard about this, but I noticed a
> clause in the LGPL that refers to header files.

I am not a lawyer, but I can speak for our intentions with omniORB. We
intend to permit omniORB to be used in closed-source commercial
applications, so any language in the license which could be construed
to mean otherwise can be ignored. We won't go after you for it.

The only thing we intend to prevent is someone taking a large piece of
the omniORB source and using it in their own closed-source program, or
taking omniORB and claiming it to be their own. Simply using omniORB
as a CORBA ORB, with all the IDL compilation and so on that that
requires, is not a problem at all.

> In addition, omniORB makes the following statement on its website:
> 
> We impose no restriction on the use of the IDL compiler output. The stub code
> produced by the IDL compiler is not considered a derived work of it.
> 
> Would someone please fill in some of the "implications", here, for me?
> 
> Should I assume that the omniORB statement means ALL IDL compiler output?
> omniidl puts both the client "stub" code and the servant "skeleton" code
> in the same output file.  This statement covers ALL of this output, right?

That statement covers all the IDL compiler output.

The things in the LGPL about header files are interesting, and perhaps
we should think about adding a clarifying statement to the omniORB
distribution. We certainly don't intend to force people to LGPL their
code just because they've #included our header files.

Cheers,

Duncan.

-- 
 -- Duncan Grisby  \  Research Engineer  --
  -- AT&T Laboratories Cambridge          --
   -- http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dpg1 --