[omniORB] OmniOrb and OmniThread licensing

[Richard Hardgrave]

> From owner-omniorb-list@uk.research.att.com Wed Mar  6 09:55 CST 2002
> Subject: RE: [omniORB] OmniOrb and OmniThread licensing
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:52:04 +0100
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
> content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Thread-Topic: OmniOrb and OmniThread licensing
> Thread-Index: AcHFGyc/0OB5EgxdRZqvcs4YiSxFJAACc0sg
> From: "Bastiaan Bakker" <Bastiaan.Bakker@lifeline.nl>
> To: "Mark D. Spiteri" <mds@apama.com>, <omniorb-list@uk.research.att.com>
> X-Loop: omniorb-list@uk.research.att.com
> 
> Hi, 
>  
> Take a look at "README.FIRST" included in the distribution:
>  
> "The programs in omniORB3 are distributed under the GNU
> General Public Licence as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> See the file COPYING for copying permission of these programs. The
> libraries in omniORB3 are distributed under the GNU Library General
> Public Licence. See the file COPYING.LIB for copying permission of
> these libraries."
>  
> Ergo, the omniThreads and omniORB libraries are LGPLed, allowing
> you to to use them in closed source products. The LGPL requires you
> to make available upon request the source code to these libraries.
> If you point to the omniORB website in your documentation, I expect
> interested users to grab the latest source there instead of requesting
> it from you. Anyway it's a small effort.
> And you'll want to dynamically link to the omniORB code indeed. If
> you desperately need to statically link, you'll have to negotiate a
> commercial license with the omniORB copyright holders. Most likely

Whoa! Bastiaan,
	Everyone has "commercial license" to "open source" software.
That's why it's called "open source".  The GPL & LGPL just require you
to publish anything you do to the software if you alter it. And, you
can't copywright any code you got as "open source".
	If you create an application (anything generated by the IDL
compiler) around the dynamic libraries, you get to keep all of your
source code private.  Your customers still have the ability to go
into the omniORB code and change it to their satisfaction because
you have freely given them the source, which you got for free. If
you statically link but did not change any omniORB source, you would
have to give your customer all of the object modules you link with
omniORB to allow them to further change omniORB source and recompile.
If you've embedded omniORB source into your code and/or changed its,
interface you've rather much created an "open source" application.
So, basically, you have to give your customer anything that is
required to rebuild the application while allowing them to make
additional changes to omniORB.  If this requires giving them any
of your source code, you are following the GPL, otherwise you are
using the LGPL.
	I know.  There's a part of this that just isn't intuitive.
Most of us have customers that want "no part of" changing and/or
rebuilding our applications.  But, you have to look at it this
way in order to be consistent with the intent of the GPL/LGPL.

	
Richard

> Duncan will be able to tell you whether AT&T is the sole copyright
> holder or there are others as well.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Bastiaan Bakker
> LifeLine Networks bv
>  
> PS. I am NOT affiliated with AT&T. The above is just my understanding of the LGPL.
>  
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark D. Spiteri [mailto:mds@apama.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:28 PM
> To: omniorb-list@uk.research.att.com
> Subject: [omniORB] OmniOrb and OmniThread licensing
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> we wish to explore building and commercially distributing software with OmniOrb and OmniThreads. Quoting http://www.uk.research.att.com/omniORB/omniORBWhy.html:
> 
> "We encourage you to use it, port it, fix bugs in it, extend and generally improve it. We simply require that this is done under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License < http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html> and GNU Library General Public License < http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lgpl.html>. "
> 
> GPL and LGPL? We believe they are incompatible, so this is odd. Can we interpret this as LGPL for the libraries we link against? We understand however that this would still require us to distribute complete sources and (realistically) precludes us from static linking against it.
> 
> Is our understanding correct? 
> 
> Thanks 
> Mark 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Mark D. Spiteri 
> Engineering Manager 
> APAMA (UK) Ltd 
> 200 Rustat Road, Clifton Road, Cambridge CB1 7EG, UK 
> Telephone: +44 (1223) 866310 Fax: +44 (1223) 866222 
>