On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Denis Barbier <bou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2009/2/10, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > [...] >> Robert, I owe you an answer on why the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible. >> IANAL, TINLA, TINASOTODP, etc. but here goes: >> * 4. para 4: "If you distribute or sublicense the Software (as >> modified by You or on Your behalf as the case may be), You cause >> such Software to be licensed as a whole, at no charge, to all >> third parties..." The GPL does not require "at no charge", and >> even expressly allows charging for software, so this is an >> additional restriction beyond the GPL. > > GPL 2, section 2.b) > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > >> * 4. para 5: "You document all Your Modifications, indicate the >> date of each such Modifications, designate the version of the >> Software You used..." None of this is required by the GPL, so >> all of these are additional restrictions. > > GPL 2, section 2.a) > You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > To me, OCTPL 6.3 (as found in OpenCascade sources, not the one > at the website, which is outdated IIRC) is identical to LGPL 2.1, they > paraphrased it, and I believe that OCTPL 6.3 is compatible with GPL.
Interesting. I assume this would mean that works combining GPL and OCTPL code (such as FreeCAD) would be acceptable to Debian main? Would it make sense to send a note about the GPL compatibility of OCTPL and its similarity to LGPL to the FTP-master? Maybe this would get OpenCascade out of the NEW queue, it's been sitting there 4 months already. Teemu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org