On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > [...] > > Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't > > see how it's relevant. > > It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an > awkward way, thus making the work non-free.
Okay, though the Pine license itself has non-free terms (may not be redistributed with non-free software), where the OpenCascade license is a free license. > Requiring that modifications are sent back to the original author is a > non-free requirement. > The license text does not seem to include such a non-free restriction, > but upstream claims that the restriction is "clearly" present. > > I think this situation is similar to the Pine one, that's why I pointed > that Linux Today story out... > > I hope I clarified. Okay, thanks. But the analogy would be better, and the outcome clearer, if the Pine license were itself free, which it's not. Here we have a free license, and non-free upstream interpretation, so it's not as clear where the package should go. > Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Me neither. Well, I'm a DD. Where do we get ASOTODP, only after attempting to upload? Cheers, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]