Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 19:43 +0200, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote: > > A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > > > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:09 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > > > > A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:25 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Adam C Powell IV > > > As I see it, the license itself is free (can you find any non-free > > > parts?). [] > > yes, it's non free at least in 2006 when I asked it to debian-legal and I > > interchanged some private mails with Aurelien Jarno. > > Really? Can you point me to a URL? I did a mistake, I saw his message in the debian-legal and I asked him directly. > I discussed it on debian-legal last > Fall (including Aurelien) and the conclusion was opposite: free license, > but upstream interprets it as non-free. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00066.html Yes, now I have read the thread and I begin to see the complexity. My attempts to contact with upstream where null. Only vague answers. In our private mails, Aurelien and I understand that it's not free software because the "preamble". Howeber, that part it's not the license, so? :-) But this is too thin for my taste ... I don't to put debian in problems. To me the best solution is to have a clear answer from Upstream, but this is difficult. > > > But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as > > > triangle, will prevent it from entering main. > > > > tetgen? > > Like I said, a handful. :-) that's another soft interesting but no free software. [] > > > > I asked in 2006 and I could ask again. > > Do you know people there? If so, then please do ask! And you could > point out that their interpretation clause saying that people must send > changes upstream would make it GPL-incompatible, let alone non-free. > And that this would make FreeCAD and Salomé illegal. Aurelien did it. I did it in the contact and I interchanged some "polite" mails with some people from there. But nothing clear. [...] > > > This is an issue for Salomé as well: it is LGPL, but it links with GPL > > > Qt, so it can't go into Debian unless the OCC license is GPL-compatible > > > and OCC will need to be in main. > > > > It's a mistake a soft that links against GPL library is GPL. It couldn't > > be LGPL. > > Well, it can be LGPL as long as the GPL library is optional. In the > case of Salomé, it has multiple components which interact using CORBA, > and it's possible that some might link with Qt and others with > proprietary code. Ok, but if you link with Qt of you are free soft or proprietary paying a licence to the Nokia people. > Unfortunately, there are binaries in Salomé which link with both Qt and > OCC (i.e. within a single component), so they must either assume that > OCC is GPL-compatible, or just ignore the licensing issues. Ignore the license issues. If really you have a component that link with OCC and QT and the license is not clear, really is a good reason to denounce them. > I discussed this a bit on the Salomé forum: > http://salome-platform.org/forum/?groupid=12&forumid=13&thread=1053 > Nobody has directly addressed the issues I raised. Yes, it too complex and bizarre. > Thanks for the input, nops, thanks to you for the work done. Leo -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 19:43 +0200, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote: > A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:09 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > > > A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:25 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Adam C Powell IV > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I haven't had much time for this recently, but my todo list > > > > > > consists of: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Switch to the tarball used by FreeBSD (and soon Gentoo) at: > > > > > > > > > > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/thierry/ * > > > > > > Conduct a thorough license/copyright "audit" of the tarball to make > > > > > > sure we have everything documented in the copyright file. * Upload > > > > > > to non-free, will probably take several iterations to get in. * > > > > > > Separate out the non-free bits. > > > > > > * Upload to main with non-free parts in separate package, > > > > > > again will probably take several iterations. > > > > > > * Use Jason Kraftcheck's scripts to separate it into a few > > > > > > packages, and re-upload. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like a good plan in general, but will the FreeBDS tarball stay > > > > > up to date with the upstream version? Well, maybe it's too early to > > > > > worry about that. > > > > > > I have followed this thread with a lot of interest. I don't think the > > > OpenCascade was free in the way to put it in debian, so to me it's a bit > > > I don't know in a polite words ... > > > > > > touch my b.. > > > > > > > > > than you spend a lot of hours in package some huge soft to nonfree. Well, > > > I know, they have their rights. But this kind of half-license half-open > > > half-nonfree are more problematic (and close) than open (free) and > > > feasible. > > > > As I see it, the license itself is free (can you find any non-free > > parts?). > > yes, it's non free at least in 2006 when I asked it to debian-legal and I > interchanged some private mails with Aurelien Jarno. Really? Can you point me to a URL? I discussed it on debian-legal last Fall (including Aurelien) and the conclusion was opposite: free license, but upstream interprets it as non-free. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00066.html > > But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as > > triangle, will prevent it from entering main. > > tetgen? Like I said, a handful. :-) > > It will take some time to > > disentangle these bits, so why not first upload to non-free, then when > > we have time to disentangle it, then put the free majority in main? > > of course. But I don't think that it could be in main. > > > > Howeber, as all in this life has a lot of buts: > > > - if we have opencascade, another great free soft that use OpenCascade > > > could be inside. > > > - if we have opencascade, maybe they want to relax their license > > > > > > I don't know... just my feelings in this. We can try to begin a campain > > > to ask to OpenCascade about a change in their licences but this is > > > utopia. > > > > Right, we can't count on a license change, though it doesn't hurt to > > ask. And having it in non-free can be good as well, as you mention. > > I asked in 2006 and I could ask again. Do you know people there? If so, then please do ask! And you could point out that their interpretation clause saying that people must send changes upstream would make it GPL-incompatible, let alone non-free. And that this would make FreeCAD and Salomé illegal. > > > > > Yes, but I can't guarantee I can spend much time on opencascade. I'm > > > > > interested in free tools for 3D CAD, and as a first step I would like > > > > > to be able to display a 3D models from IGES files. Apparently FreeCAD > > > > > ( http://juergen-riegel.net/FreeCAD/Docu/index.php?title=Main_Page ) > > > > > can do this, but it needs Opencascade to compile. > > > > > > FreeCad seems a great soft. I have tested the deb package (with > > > opencascade inside. It would be nice to have a deb package ... at least > > > in contrib. > > > > The FreeCAD libraries can go into contrib, but the main GPL app cannot > > -- unless Debian concludes that the OpenCASCADE license is > > GPL-compatible! At this point, I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's > > hard to tell. > > ? > it's gpl is public the discussion? It's just curiosity. See above. > > This is an issue for Salomé as well: it is LGPL, but it links with GPL > > Qt, so it can't go into Debian unless the OCC license is GPL-compatible > > and OCC will need to be in main. > > It's a mistake a soft that links against GPL library is GPL. It couldn't be > LGPL. Well, it can be LGPL as long as the GPL library is optional. In the case of Salomé, it has multiple components which interact using CORBA, and it's possible that some might link with
Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:09 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > > A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > > > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:25 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Adam C Powell IV > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > I haven't had much time for this recently, but my todo list > > > > > consists of: > > > > > > > > > > * Switch to the tarball used by FreeBSD (and soon Gentoo) at: > > > > > > > > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/thierry/ * > > > > > Conduct a thorough license/copyright "audit" of the tarball to make > > > > > sure we have everything documented in the copyright file. * Upload > > > > > to non-free, will probably take several iterations to get in. * > > > > > Separate out the non-free bits. > > > > > * Upload to main with non-free parts in separate package, > > > > > again will probably take several iterations. > > > > > * Use Jason Kraftcheck's scripts to separate it into a few > > > > > packages, and re-upload. > > > > > > > > Sounds like a good plan in general, but will the FreeBDS tarball stay > > > > up to date with the upstream version? Well, maybe it's too early to > > > > worry about that. > > > > I have followed this thread with a lot of interest. I don't think the > > OpenCascade was free in the way to put it in debian, so to me it's a bit > > I don't know in a polite words ... > > > > touch my b.. > > > > > > than you spend a lot of hours in package some huge soft to nonfree. Well, > > I know, they have their rights. But this kind of half-license half-open > > half-nonfree are more problematic (and close) than open (free) and > > feasible. > > As I see it, the license itself is free (can you find any non-free > parts?). yes, it's non free at least in 2006 when I asked it to debian-legal and I interchanged some private mails with Aurelien Jarno. > But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as > triangle, will prevent it from entering main. tetgen? > It will take some time to > disentangle these bits, so why not first upload to non-free, then when > we have time to disentangle it, then put the free majority in main? of course. But I don't think that it could be in main. > > Howeber, as all in this life has a lot of buts: > > - if we have opencascade, another great free soft that use OpenCascade > > could be inside. > > - if we have opencascade, maybe they want to relax their license > > > > I don't know... just my feelings in this. We can try to begin a campain > > to ask to OpenCascade about a change in their licences but this is > > utopia. > > Right, we can't count on a license change, though it doesn't hurt to > ask. And having it in non-free can be good as well, as you mention. I asked in 2006 and I could ask again. > > > > Yes, but I can't guarantee I can spend much time on opencascade. I'm > > > > interested in free tools for 3D CAD, and as a first step I would like > > > > to be able to display a 3D models from IGES files. Apparently FreeCAD > > > > ( http://juergen-riegel.net/FreeCAD/Docu/index.php?title=Main_Page ) > > > > can do this, but it needs Opencascade to compile. > > > > FreeCad seems a great soft. I have tested the deb package (with > > opencascade inside. It would be nice to have a deb package ... at least > > in contrib. > > The FreeCAD libraries can go into contrib, but the main GPL app cannot > -- unless Debian concludes that the OpenCASCADE license is > GPL-compatible! At this point, I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's > hard to tell. ? it's gpl is public the discussion? It's just curiosity. > > This is an issue for Salomé as well: it is LGPL, but it links with GPL > Qt, so it can't go into Debian unless the OCC license is GPL-compatible > and OCC will need to be in main. It's a mistake a soft that links against GPL library is GPL. It couldn't be LGPL. Regards, Leo -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Teemu Ikonen va escriure: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The FreeCAD libraries can go into contrib, but the main GPL app cannot > > -- unless Debian concludes that the OpenCASCADE license is > > GPL-compatible! At this point, I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's > > hard to tell. > > So you think OpenCASCADE license is both DFSG-free and GPL compatible? I don't think so, Adam. Ask to Aurelien Jarno. I asked it in 2006. > That would be very nice. If this would not be the case, distributing > FreeCAD would be a legal problem, since they combine GPL code (Qt4 > plus their own) with OpenCASCADE. ummm, sells bad. > I just compiled FreeCAD with Debianized libraries and it does import > and display IGES rather well, so getting it to some section of Debian > would be good. I used a version of your OpenCASCADE packaging built > with the FreeBSD tarball, so it seems to work somehow, although I did > have some build errors in FreeCAD related to OpenCASCADE. I'll send a > patch when I find time to sort them all out. > > I also had to sort of fix #415382 in soqt in order to get a version of > the library which links against Qt4. I will probably post a proper > patch to the bugreport soon, in case someone else wants to build > FreeCAD without non-debian libraries. About this. I have sent a patch to the debian maintainer (Steve M. Robbins) . I hope that soon we will have both versions of the library. The original message was mine ... Regards, Leo -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The FreeCAD libraries can go into contrib, but the main GPL app cannot > -- unless Debian concludes that the OpenCASCADE license is > GPL-compatible! At this point, I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's > hard to tell. So you think OpenCASCADE license is both DFSG-free and GPL compatible? That would be very nice. If this would not be the case, distributing FreeCAD would be a legal problem, since they combine GPL code (Qt4 plus their own) with OpenCASCADE. I just compiled FreeCAD with Debianized libraries and it does import and display IGES rather well, so getting it to some section of Debian would be good. I used a version of your OpenCASCADE packaging built with the FreeBSD tarball, so it seems to work somehow, although I did have some build errors in FreeCAD related to OpenCASCADE. I'll send a patch when I find time to sort them all out. I also had to sort of fix #415382 in soqt in order to get a version of the library which links against Qt4. I will probably post a proper patch to the bugreport soon, in case someone else wants to build FreeCAD without non-debian libraries. Teemu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:09 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:25 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I haven't had much time for this recently, but my todo list consists > > > > of: > > > > > > > > * Switch to the tarball used by FreeBSD (and soon Gentoo) at: > > > > > > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/thierry/ * > > > > Conduct a thorough license/copyright "audit" of the tarball to make > > > > sure we have everything documented in the copyright file. * Upload to > > > > non-free, will probably take several iterations to get in. > > > > * Separate out the non-free bits. > > > > * Upload to main with non-free parts in separate package, again > > > > will probably take several iterations. > > > > * Use Jason Kraftcheck's scripts to separate it into a few > > > > packages, and re-upload. > > > > > > Sounds like a good plan in general, but will the FreeBDS tarball stay > > > up to date with the upstream version? Well, maybe it's too early to > > > worry about that. > > I have followed this thread with a lot of interest. I don't think the > OpenCascade was free in the way to put it in debian, so to me it's a bit > I don't know in a polite words ... > > touch my b.. > > > than you spend a lot of hours in package some huge soft to nonfree. Well, I > know, they have their rights. But this kind of half-license half-open > half-nonfree are more problematic (and close) than open (free) and feasible. As I see it, the license itself is free (can you find any non-free parts?). But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as triangle, will prevent it from entering main. It will take some time to disentangle these bits, so why not first upload to non-free, then when we have time to disentangle it, then put the free majority in main? > Howeber, as all in this life has a lot of buts: > - if we have opencascade, another great free soft that use OpenCascade could > be inside. > - if we have opencascade, maybe they want to relax their license > > I don't know... just my feelings in this. We can try to begin a campain to > ask > to OpenCascade about a change in their licences but this is utopia. Right, we can't count on a license change, though it doesn't hurt to ask. And having it in non-free can be good as well, as you mention. > > > Yes, but I can't guarantee I can spend much time on opencascade. I'm > > > interested in free tools for 3D CAD, and as a first step I would like > > > to be able to display a 3D models from IGES files. Apparently FreeCAD > > > ( http://juergen-riegel.net/FreeCAD/Docu/index.php?title=Main_Page ) > > > can do this, but it needs Opencascade to compile. > > FreeCad seems a great soft. I have tested the deb package (with opencascade > inside. It would be nice to have a deb package ... at least in contrib. The FreeCAD libraries can go into contrib, but the main GPL app cannot -- unless Debian concludes that the OpenCASCADE license is GPL-compatible! At this point, I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's hard to tell. This is an issue for Salomé as well: it is LGPL, but it links with GPL Qt, so it can't go into Debian unless the OCC license is GPL-compatible and OCC will need to be in main. -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]
Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:25 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I haven't had much time for this recently, but my todo list consists > > > of: > > > > > > * Switch to the tarball used by FreeBSD (and soon Gentoo) at: > > > > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/thierry/ * > > > Conduct a thorough license/copyright "audit" of the tarball to make > > > sure we have everything documented in the copyright file. * Upload to > > > non-free, will probably take several iterations to get in. > > > * Separate out the non-free bits. > > > * Upload to main with non-free parts in separate package, again > > > will probably take several iterations. > > > * Use Jason Kraftcheck's scripts to separate it into a few > > > packages, and re-upload. > > > > Sounds like a good plan in general, but will the FreeBDS tarball stay > > up to date with the upstream version? Well, maybe it's too early to > > worry about that. I have followed this thread with a lot of interest. I don't think the OpenCascade was free in the way to put it in debian, so to me it's a bit I don't know in a polite words ... touch my b.. than you spend a lot of hours in package some huge soft to nonfree. Well, I know, they have their rights. But this kind of half-license half-open half-nonfree are more problematic (and close) than open (free) and feasible. Howeber, as all in this life has a lot of buts: - if we have opencascade, another great free soft that use OpenCascade could be inside. - if we have opencascade, maybe they want to relax their license I don't know... just my feelings in this. We can try to begin a campain to ask to OpenCascade about a change in their licences but this is utopia. [...] > > Yes, but I can't guarantee I can spend much time on opencascade. I'm > > interested in free tools for 3D CAD, and as a first step I would like > > to be able to display a 3D models from IGES files. Apparently FreeCAD > > ( http://juergen-riegel.net/FreeCAD/Docu/index.php?title=Main_Page ) > > can do this, but it needs Opencascade to compile. > FreeCad seems a great soft. I have tested the deb package (with opencascade inside. It would be nice to have a deb package ... at least in contrib. Leo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
