Re: RE : Re: OpenCASCADE re-licensing: a (desperate) call for help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/2012 19:19, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 11:32:01 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > It's still true that SALOME was affected by this licensing issue in > the past and was removed from Debian due to multiple issues > (including the licensing ones). But the issue no longer affects the > current SALOME... Actually, the removal was not asked because of the license issues. I asked the removal because the package: * didn't build * was not usable * not maintained Sylvestre -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/+nDYACgkQiOXXM92JlhBpbACeLgx9s5w9ifPpyfDs4uKntxny dgMAnjCHCll9CFz+pZx9RCAyhuY+rkJ7 =gElZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ffe9c36.2030...@debian.org
Re: RE : Re: OpenCASCADE re-licensing: a (desperate) call for help
Le 06/07/2012 10:54, Francesco Poli a écrit : > On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:16:58 +0200 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > >> Does open cascade is a subsitairi of commissariat a l energie atomique(cea) >> ? > Hi Bastien, > thanks for following up on this discussion. > > > I don't know whether there's any relationship between OPEN CASCADE > S.A.S. and CEA. CEA is involved (probably from the start) in the SALOME development (which is based on OpenCASCADE). Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff8ae23.1050...@debian.org
Re: JOGL in Debian
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:20:14 -0600, "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07/12/2007, Sylvestre Ledru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> it has been >> designed for the french (and european) law which is quite specific about >> intellectual property. > > Does French law define "intellectual property"? What does it define it to > be? Of course, our law defines what is an "intellectual property" and it is going futher. However, since I am not a lawyer and I will not explain this very well, you will find more information on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law or in French : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_d%27auteur#En_France Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JOGL in Debian
> > and it is also compatible with the french law ! > > Are you implying you have any evidence that the GNU GPL v2 is > *incompatible* with french law?!? I didn't say that. I am just saying (or trying to say) that it has been designed for the french (and european) law which is quite specific about intellectual property. Sylvestre PS : sorry for the C/C, I know, it was only a mistake. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: JOGL in Debian
> However, why not just adopt the plain GNU GPL v2 ? CECILL is from INRIA too and it is also compatible with the french law ! > > > Firstoff, from a technical point of view, shipping the *exact same > > > code* in two different packages does not seem to be a good idea. > > > Could this duplication of code be avoided? > > > Is it possible to link or otherwise use the code included in the > > > mesa package, rather than packaging another copy of it? > > Well, it is the exact same code (ie not rewrote) but in Java... and I > > think JOGL devs prefer to avoid JNI code. > > Then it's not the *exact same code*: it's a translation in Java. > That kinda explains why the original code included in mesa packages > cannot be directly used. I used the words of the guys from Sun on this, but yes, that explains ... > > > > > Anyway, from a DFSG-freeness point of view, that license is indeed > > > problematic: see http://bugs.debian.org/368560 for the details. > > > Unfortunately, there seems to have been too little progress on this > > > bug so far. > > Do you know if anyone contacted the owner of the code ? > > Or if anything is planned to fix this issue ? > > I have not been directly involved in the issue: I think that the people > who participated in the bug discussion should be contacted for further > information. OK, I sent an email to this bug to learn if there is anything new ! Sylvestre signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: JOGL in Debian
> > > > I am one of the developer of Scilab. We are rewriting the GUI from > > scratch using Java (Swing) and JOGL. > > Since we prefer to have Scilab packages available (especially because > > Scilab is going to change his license to a free one), > > That's really good news! > Which license are you considering to switch to? It is probably going to be CECILL. > Firstoff, from a technical point of view, shipping the *exact same code* > in two different packages does not seem to be a good idea. > Could this duplication of code be avoided? > Is it possible to link or otherwise use the code included in the mesa > package, rather than packaging another copy of it? Well, it is the exact same code (ie not rewrote) but in Java... and I think JOGL devs prefer to avoid JNI code. > Anyway, from a DFSG-freeness point of view, that license is indeed > problematic: see http://bugs.debian.org/368560 for the details. > Unfortunately, there seems to have been too little progress on this bug > so far. Do you know if anyone contacted the owner of the code ? Or if anything is planned to fix this issue ? Sylvestre signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
JOGL in Debian
Hello, I am one of the developer of Scilab. We are rewriting the GUI from scratch using Java (Swing) and JOGL. Since we prefer to have Scilab packages available (especially because Scilab is going to change his license to a free one), we need to have JOGL in Debian. I did a debian package of the latest version of JOGL ready to be incorporated in Debian. However, it seems that there is an issue highlighted by Fedora and Robert Schuster. A part of the code of JOGL is under the SGI Free License B. The FSF says that it is not a free license [1]. It is why Anthony Green removed it from Fedora. The "defense" of the dev of JOGL, Ken Russell [2] and Tom Marble [3] (both from Sun) is that both Fedora and Debian are shipping Mesa with the *exact same code* with the same license. If we are shipping SGI Free B code in debian, I guess we can accept JOGL in Debian ? What is your opinion(s) on this ? Cheers, Sylvestre [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [2] http://www.javagaming.org/forums/index.php?topic=10718.msg138381#msg138381 [3] Email of Tom Marble : " - JOGL contains the exact same SGI FreeB code as Mesa - If another implementation of the OpenGL GLU image scaling and tesselator routines which is licensed under a different license than SGI FreeB (and compatible with JOGL's BSD license) shows up, we can consider re-porting that to Java. - The code is nearly 15 years old and it's a safe bet that SGI isn't making much money off this particular area of the code at this point. [...] I respect that we all need to get rid of the FreeB code. However I don't think it's fair that the *exact same code* is accepted for Mesa, but not for JOGL. " signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
