Re: Re: opencascade license in squeeze
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 10:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:09:45PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV a écrit : * The statement that the copyright license is not a trademark license is not in conflict with the GPL, and explicitly stated as an option in GPL-3. I don't think anyone believes GPL-3 is incompatible with GPL-2... Dear Adam, I have not followed the issue so I can not help you to solve it, however I just would like to correct one thing that you wrote above: the GPLs version 2 and 3 are incompatible. You can find more detailed explanations on the FSF website: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility D'oh! Forgot about that. I was thinking some of the patent clauses might break compatibility, I guess there are multiple v3 restrictions which do so... But the criterion remains: an incompatible license is one which imposes additional restrictions beyond the GPL. That's regardless of whether a license claims to be compatible or not. Have a nice week-end, Thanks, you too! -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
Re: Re: opencascade license in squeeze
Hi Francesco, I contacted upstream a number of times a couple of years ago, and never got any reply. That said, a couple of people convinced me that OCTPL is (now) GPL-compatible, so FreeCAD is distributable, based on the following points: * The clause indicating You are also obliged to send your modifications of the original source code (if you've made any) to the Initial Developer, which was in OCTPL 6.2, is gone from OCTPL 6.3.0. The license on opencascade.org is wrong, see the LICENSE file in the distribution, where the introductory language containing the above clause has been removed. * The statement that the copyright license is not a trademark license is not in conflict with the GPL, and explicitly stated as an option in GPL-3. I don't think anyone believes GPL-3 is incompatible with GPL-2... * There are other copyleft licenses which are GPL-compatible but do not include explicit GPL-compatibility clauses. (And there are probably copyleft licenses which claim to be GPL-compatible in their clauses but aren't.) The basic requirement is that the license not add additional restrictions beyond the GPL. LGPL licensing of OpenCASCADE would clear this up once and for all. But on the other hand, as one debian-legal poster mentioned (sorry, can't find the reference just now), the trademark clause clarifies the (lack of) trademark rights on derivatives more than other licenses (such as Firefox, which has a separate trademark policy). Whether that makes it a good license worth using is debatable, but it's doubtful upstream will walk away from it. That said, I'm going to contact a couple of people and see if there is a potential for LGPL licensing... Sorry these points have not been aired in a public forum before. I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, and only recently became aware of these posts (thanks Francesco!), so I didn't know that people were raising an issue of this. [As a result of not being subscribed, please CC me in replies.] -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
Re: Re: opencascade license in squeeze
Le Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:09:45PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV a écrit : * The statement that the copyright license is not a trademark license is not in conflict with the GPL, and explicitly stated as an option in GPL-3. I don't think anyone believes GPL-3 is incompatible with GPL-2... Dear Adam, I have not followed the issue so I can not help you to solve it, however I just would like to correct one thing that you wrote above: the GPLs version 2 and 3 are incompatible. You can find more detailed explanations on the FSF website: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20100306015340.gc12...@kunpuu.plessy.org
Re: opencascade license in squeeze
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:49:15 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] As a consequence, if nobody else helps me by contacting upstream and persuading them to re-license under the LGPLv2.1, I am afraid that two serious bugs have to be filed against freecad and gmsh. Nobody interested in helping freecad and gmsh (by contacting opencascade upstream)? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpE1UCsv3opC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: opencascade license in squeeze
cristian paul peñaranda rojas p...@kristianpaul.org wrote: Hello, I was checking opencascade in lenny was in non-free, but in queeze is in main-free now :D So i guess the new license is okay with debian legal and free sofware, but can anyone in shorts word explainme why please :) From the changelog at http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/opencascade/news/20090307T154958Z.html * Upstream replaced Triangle by a free implementation, thus external-triangle.patch is removed as well as dependencies against libtriangle-dev. * Remove ros/src/FontMFT/*.mft files, these font files have no sources. (As a side effect, closes: #487116) * All non-free bits have thus been removed, and opencascade is moved from non-free into main. The license was never really an issue. There was an explanatory note which contradicted the license and seemed to add non-free terms, but that is not the license. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: opencascade license in squeeze
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:06:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: [...] The license was never really an issue. There was an explanatory note which contradicted the license and seemed to add non-free terms, but that is not the license. As I summarized in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/10/msg0.html the license itself is not really a show-stopper (as long as we neglect how upstream interpret it, a strategy that should not be taken lightly, IMHO). The real problem is the incompatibility of the OCTPL with the GPL: see again the above-cited message, which, unfortunately, received no reply at all from debian-legal participants. An update on the situation follows. There's still no progress on the re-licensing of Open CASCADE: the management (of Open CASCADE S.A.S.) has not yet discussed the matter and it seems that no decision is going to be taken in a short time frame. I am going on contacting them periodically and asking them if there's some progress, but, apparently, I am not persuasive enough... :-( As a consequence, if nobody else helps me by contacting upstream and persuading them to re-license under the LGPLv2.1, I am afraid that two serious bugs have to be filed against freecad and gmsh. I was waiting to do this, since I was hoping that the problem could be solved by the re-licensing of opencascade, but now I am beginning to lose the hope that this can happen in a reasonable time frame. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpCPSvwCsbFV.pgp Description: PGP signature
opencascade license in squeeze
Hello, I was checking opencascade in lenny was in non-free, but in queeze is in main-free now :D So i guess the new license is okay with debian legal and free sofware, but can anyone in shorts word explainme why please :) Saludos Cristian Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
