Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:06:54 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: Hello, Hi Anton, thanks for following up on this issue. does it mean, that FreeCAD upstream and others (gmsh, for example) has chosen the wrong license? No, I don't think that this is the conclusion we should draw from the issue under consideration. FreeCAD copyright owners chose the GNU LGPL (v2 or later), which is a good choice (and does not prevent, by itself, the distribution of FreeCAD linked with OpenCASCADE). There are some files licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL (v2 or later) included in FreeCAD, and those files may be an issue with respect to OpenCASCADE. But anyway, that's not the point: even in the hypothetical case where the whole FreeCAD were licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, their copyright owners could always add an exception to allow the distribution of copies linked with works licensed under the terms of the OCTPL. See this answer in the FSF GPL FAQ for more details: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs The actual issue is that FreeCAD is linked with both OpenCASCADE (which is GPL-incompatible) and Coin3D (which is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v2). The problem is that OpenCASCADE copyright owners seem to have been considering to switch to the GNU LGPL v2.1 for a long time, but they have not taken a decision yet... :-( As I said in the original bug report, I need help in persuading them: http://bugs.debian.org/617613#5 Thanks. You're welcome! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpIO7QMnd1hq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:00:39 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: Hi Francesco, Hi Adam! On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 19:30 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Please let me understand: (0) you (still) don't think that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible or (1) you agree that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible, but you think that this is not an issue for the package freecad linked with libopencascade-* Is it (0) or (1)? It's 0, I don't see any clauses in the OCTPL itself which render it GPL-incompatible, agreeing with Denis' interpretation. As I said in the original bug report [1]: | it implements a copyleft mechanism and has no explicit | GPL-compatibility clause. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/617613#5 Let me be more explicit. I think that you agree that the OCTPL includes restrictions not present in the GNU GPL v2. At the very least, the following one [2], which is part of clause 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, under | the terms and conditions of the License, making in particular | available to all third parties the source code of the Software; [2] http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ This clause implements a (weak form of) copyleft mechanism by mandating that any derivative work be licensed as a whole under the terms of the OCTPL. This is a restriction which is certainly not included in the GNU GPL v2. If you try to combine a GPLv2-licensed work and an OCTPLv6.5-licensed work, the resulting combination must be licensed as a whole under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 (to comply with the license of the first work), but also under the terms of the OCTPL v6.5 (to comply with the license of the second work). But the GPL mandates that no further restrictions may be added to the derivative work, and the OCTPL includes clauses that are further restrictions (from the GPL point of view). As a consequence, you cannot legally distribute the resulting combination and comply with both the GPLv2 and the OCTPLv6.5 . These two licenses are therefore incompatible with each other. [...] When I filed the bug report, the GPL-incompatibility had been acknowledged by Open CASCADE S.A.S. itself (that is to say, the authors of the OCTPL!). Do you have a link where they acknowledge GPL incompatibility? The preamble isn't part of the legally-binding text. The GPL-incompatibility is not acknowledged in the preamble. It's acknowledged in the FAQ, as I said in the original bug report [1] (please re-read at least what I originally wrote when reporting this bug, otherwise we will run forever in circles...). [1] http://bugs.debian.org/617613#5 [...] An official ruling on the fact that a GPL'ed package which links with both a GPL'ed library and a GPL-incompatible library has a serious bug?!? I thought this was agreed upon long time ago within the Debian Project. I have seen so many packages with such issues reported as serious bugs (for instance for GPL programs linking with OpenSSL), that I think it goes without saying! No, I meant that until December 2, Debian had not given an official ruling indicating whether OCTPL is GPL-compatible. Now they have issued a ruling but without any clarity or justification. I'm going to ask Joerg for a clarification on his email of December 2. I think the GPLv2-incompatibility of the OCTPLv6.5 is pretty clear and uncontroversial: I am not sure why some people still seem to have doubts and ask for official Debian rulings or statements from the ftp-masters... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpNat7YWJjnk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:02:18 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] Or do you agree with Francesco's analysis based on the preamble, which is not legally binding? My GPL-compatibility analysis is not based on the preamble: where did you get the impression that it was? As I said in the original bug report [1]: | it implements a copyleft mechanism and has no explicit | GPL-compatibility clause. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/617613#5 I tried to be more explicit in my previous message [2] [2] http://bugs.debian.org/617613#99 -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpepxbNGgY4N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
Hello, does it mean, that FreeCAD upstream and others (gmsh, for example) has chosen the wrong license? Thanks. Anton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 18:15 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi as we have been asked about this license problem and not yet provided an answer: Either the licensing is changed so that the incompatibility no longer is there (by either getting the license changed, or exceptions in the other parts, or by using replacement software which does not have license problems, whatever works), or failing that, the package(s) need to go from Debian. I'm sorry, can you be more specific? You have concluded that the OpenCASCADE Technology Public License (OCTPL) is incompatible with GPL? Which part(s) of OCTPL is/are incompatible? Or do you agree with Francesco's analysis based on the preamble, which is not legally binding? Thank you, Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
Hi Francesco, On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 19:30 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:49:10 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Yes, but I think freecad should not be released in a stable version (again) with this serious issue unsolved. Indeed, a package with a copyright/licensing issue can't go into a release, and can't go into testing. IMO this isn't an issue, Please let me understand: (0) you (still) don't think that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible or (1) you agree that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible, but you think that this is not an issue for the package freecad linked with libopencascade-* Is it (0) or (1)? It's 0, I don't see any clauses in the OCTPL itself which render it GPL-incompatible, agreeing with Denis' interpretation. and the fact that Debian allowed it into unstable and the squeeze release indicates that the project probably doesn't think so either. [...] The issue may have been overlooked at first. If I recall correctly, the initial discussions about the OCTPL were mainly focused on its DFSG-freeness. The GPL-incompatibility issue was only raised later and was not immediately clear. Indeed. When I filed the bug report, the GPL-incompatibility had been acknowledged by Open CASCADE S.A.S. itself (that is to say, the authors of the OCTPL!). Do you have a link where they acknowledge GPL incompatibility? The preamble isn't part of the legally-binding text. But until there's an official ruling on this issue, the package can't go any further in Debian. An official ruling on the fact that a GPL'ed package which links with both a GPL'ed library and a GPL-incompatible library has a serious bug?!? I thought this was agreed upon long time ago within the Debian Project. I have seen so many packages with such issues reported as serious bugs (for instance for GPL programs linking with OpenSSL), that I think it goes without saying! No, I meant that until December 2, Debian had not given an official ruling indicating whether OCTPL is GPL-compatible. Now they have issued a ruling but without any clarity or justification. I'm going to ask Joerg for a clarification on his email of December 2. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
Hi as we have been asked about this license problem and not yet provided an answer: Either the licensing is changed so that the incompatibility no longer is there (by either getting the license changed, or exceptions in the other parts, or by using replacement software which does not have license problems, whatever works), or failing that, the package(s) need to go from Debian. -- bye, Joerg Yeah, patching debian/rules sounds like changing shoes while running the 100 meters track. -- Michael Koch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
It seems, there is a slight update of the license dated March 2011 [1]. Can anyone, please, have a look at this license? Is it still GPL-incompatible? Thanks, Anton [1] http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:44:11 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: It seems, there is a slight update of the license dated March 2011 [1]. Can anyone, please, have a look at this license? Is it still GPL-incompatible? [...] [1] http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ Hi Anton! Thanks a lot for following up and for checking whether there's some news on this front. Unfortunately, I had already checked v6.5 of the license before reporting bug #617613: please see the original report [2] [...] | Please note that Open CASCADE Technology version 6.5 has been recently | released, but v6.5 of the license, despite having a much more accurate | preamble, is substantially unchanged in its legally binding text. [...] [2] http://bugs.debian.org/617613#5 In other words, the license is still GPL-incompatible, sadly. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpV2Xyfwlw2v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:18:01 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: Can we decrease the severity of this bug to return the freecad back to testing? Why? I think the bug is still unfixed and still serious, unfortunately. The bug filed on March, but freecad was removed from testing on May because of FTBFS's (I think). Yes, but I think freecad should not be released in a stable version (again) with this serious issue unsolved. I still think that the proper solution to this bug is persuading Open CASCADE S.A.S. to re-license Open CASCADE Technology under GPLv2-compatible terms. I have been pestering them since April 2009: I am trying to persuade them to re-license under the GNU LGPL v2.1; they always say that a decision is pending, that their legal department is working on the issue, and so forth, but no news comes out... :-( If nobody helps me, I am afraid that they will never make up their minds. :-( So once again, please join me in this persuasion effort! Please get in touch with Open CASCADE S.A.S. and persuade them to switch to the GNU LGPL v2.1 !!! Thanks for any help you can provide. Now FTBFS's are fixed on all platforms, but freecad cannot return back to testing. Anyway, this issue cannot be resolved without uploading OCE [1] into the Debian. Thanks [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/oce.git;a=summary What's this? Do I understand correctly that it's a fork of OpenCASCADE? Since it is a derivative work of the official OpenCASCADE, it's under the same DFSG-free weak-copyleft, but GPL-incompatible, license (as confirmed by the debian/copyright file). How can this fork solve any license compatibility issues between FreeCAD and OpenCASCADE? Could you please explain? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpdCFZojiKIj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:18:01 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: Can we decrease the severity of this bug to return the freecad back to testing? Why? I think the bug is still unfixed and still serious, unfortunately. The bug filed on March, but freecad was removed from testing on May because of FTBFS's (I think). Yes, but I think freecad should not be released in a stable version (again) with this serious issue unsolved. Indeed, a package with a copyright/licensing issue can't go into a release, and can't go into testing. IMO this isn't an issue, and the fact that Debian allowed it into unstable and the squeeze release indicates that the project probably doesn't think so either. (Ubuntu has had Freecad since from lucid to oneiric, so they don't seem to think there's a OCTPL-GPL incompatibility either.) But until there's an official ruling on this issue, the package can't go any further in Debian. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
Ok, thanks for both opinions, I agree, that we cannot put freecad into testing. I was hoping, that OCE will fix the issue, but it is seems not... So, if the license issue is not resolved we will request deletion of freecad from unstable? Thanks. Anton On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:18:01 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: Can we decrease the severity of this bug to return the freecad back to testing? Why? I think the bug is still unfixed and still serious, unfortunately. The bug filed on March, but freecad was removed from testing on May because of FTBFS's (I think). Yes, but I think freecad should not be released in a stable version (again) with this serious issue unsolved. Indeed, a package with a copyright/licensing issue can't go into a release, and can't go into testing. IMO this isn't an issue, and the fact that Debian allowed it into unstable and the squeeze release indicates that the project probably doesn't think so either. (Ubuntu has had Freecad since from lucid to oneiric, so they don't seem to think there's a OCTPL-GPL incompatibility either.) But until there's an official ruling on this issue, the package can't go any further in Debian. -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 debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
I think we leave it there pending a decision by the project, which will either allow it into testing or remove it from unstable. No need to do anything else in the meantime. I think we should continue to develop the package, so it's in top shape in case the project approves it, it's available to unstable users, and its updates flow to Ubuntu users as well. -Adam On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 18:29 +0100, Anton Gladky wrote: Ok, thanks for both opinions, I agree, that we cannot put freecad into testing. I was hoping, that OCE will fix the issue, but it is seems not... So, if the license issue is not resolved we will request deletion of freecad from unstable? Thanks. Anton On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:18:01 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: Can we decrease the severity of this bug to return the freecad back to testing? Why? I think the bug is still unfixed and still serious, unfortunately. The bug filed on March, but freecad was removed from testing on May because of FTBFS's (I think). Yes, but I think freecad should not be released in a stable version (again) with this serious issue unsolved. Indeed, a package with a copyright/licensing issue can't go into a release, and can't go into testing. IMO this isn't an issue, and the fact that Debian allowed it into unstable and the squeeze release indicates that the project probably doesn't think so either. (Ubuntu has had Freecad since from lucid to oneiric, so they don't seem to think there's a OCTPL-GPL incompatibility either.) But until there's an official ruling on this issue, the package can't go any further in Debian. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:49:10 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Yes, but I think freecad should not be released in a stable version (again) with this serious issue unsolved. Indeed, a package with a copyright/licensing issue can't go into a release, and can't go into testing. IMO this isn't an issue, Please let me understand: (0) you (still) don't think that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible or (1) you agree that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible, but you think that this is not an issue for the package freecad linked with libopencascade-* Is it (0) or (1)? and the fact that Debian allowed it into unstable and the squeeze release indicates that the project probably doesn't think so either. [...] The issue may have been overlooked at first. If I recall correctly, the initial discussions about the OCTPL were mainly focused on its DFSG-freeness. The GPL-incompatibility issue was only raised later and was not immediately clear. When I filed the bug report, the GPL-incompatibility had been acknowledged by Open CASCADE S.A.S. itself (that is to say, the authors of the OCTPL!). But until there's an official ruling on this issue, the package can't go any further in Debian. An official ruling on the fact that a GPL'ed package which links with both a GPL'ed library and a GPL-incompatible library has a serious bug?!? I thought this was agreed upon long time ago within the Debian Project. I have seen so many packages with such issues reported as serious bugs (for instance for GPL programs linking with OpenSSL), that I think it goes without saying! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp0QmXuAaw73.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:40:48 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: I think we leave it there pending a decision by the project, which will either allow it into testing or remove it from unstable. Please let me be clear and explicit on this: I would not be happy at all, if freecad were removed from Debian! That's why I have struggled for years and I am still struggling to solve this issue for the best (that is, by persuading Open CASCADE S.A.S. to re-license under the GNU LGPL v2.1). If nobody helps me, I am afraid that removal from Debian will have to be the only way out. But it would be a very sad way out. So, please, contact Open CASCADE S.A.S. and persuade them to switch to the GNU LGPL v2.1! No need to do anything else in the meantime. Apart from pestering Open CASCADE S.A.S. and have them make up their minds, that is! I think we should continue to develop the package, so it's in top shape in case the project approves it, it's available to unstable users, and its updates flow to Ubuntu users as well. I agree, but with s/the project approves it/we succeed in persuading Open CASCADE S.A.S. to re-license under the GNU LGPL v2.1/ I cannot stress it more than this: I need other people to contact Open CASCADE S.A.S. ! We have to show them that really many people ask for this switch to the GNU LGPL v2.1 ! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpynVEUz0QoO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
Francesco, are your emails to Open CASCADE S.A.S. available somewhere in ML-archives, or it was private mails? Anton On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:40:48 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: I think we leave it there pending a decision by the project, which will either allow it into testing or remove it from unstable. Please let me be clear and explicit on this: I would not be happy at all, if freecad were removed from Debian! That's why I have struggled for years and I am still struggling to solve this issue for the best (that is, by persuading Open CASCADE S.A.S. to re-license under the GNU LGPL v2.1). If nobody helps me, I am afraid that removal from Debian will have to be the only way out. But it would be a very sad way out. So, please, contact Open CASCADE S.A.S. and persuade them to switch to the GNU LGPL v2.1! No need to do anything else in the meantime. Apart from pestering Open CASCADE S.A.S. and have them make up their minds, that is! I think we should continue to develop the package, so it's in top shape in case the project approves it, it's available to unstable users, and its updates flow to Ubuntu users as well. I agree, but with s/the project approves it/we succeed in persuading Open CASCADE S.A.S. to re-license under the GNU LGPL v2.1/ I cannot stress it more than this: I need other people to contact Open CASCADE S.A.S. ! We have to show them that really many people ask for this switch to the GNU LGPL v2.1 ! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:08:34 +0100 Anton Gladky wrote: Francesco, are your emails to Open CASCADE S.A.S. available somewhere in ML-archives, or it was private mails? They were private e-mail messages, and therefore not publicly archived. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpT0pUExdjrk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing
Can we decrease the severity of this bug to return the freecad back to testing? The bug filed on March, but freecad was removed from testing on May because of FTBFS's (I think). Now FTBFS's are fixed on all platforms, but freecad cannot return back to testing. Anyway, this issue cannot be resolved without uploading OCE [1] into the Debian. Thanks [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/oce.git;a=summary Anton -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
