Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
CGAL 3.2 is going to be released in a few days. I've been in contact with the upstream developers to resolve the license issues. 1) Anything that goes into libCGAL.a and libCGALQt.a is licensed under LGPL. There are no QPL'd files involved in the build of those libraries. 2) The examples as well as some demos and other files are available under an MIT-like license (previously no license at all). 3) Third-party software contained in the CGAL tarball is clearly identfied as such in the top-level LICENSE file (and Debian's copyright file). 4) There is no license for the documentation (upstream could not agree on a license yet). Therefore, the documentation has been removed from the Debian tarball. Fortunately, the documentation is separately available from www.cgal.org. I plan to package the software and to look for a sponsor as soon as the final tarballs are available. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
After doing QPL-cleanup: $ rm `grep -lr LICENSE.QPL .` Build do fails. There seems to be some debug headers that the core uses. Thanks for pointing out. Regards, Joachim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
Hi Toni, How does upstream release version 3.1 of CGAL, actually fixes these issues? The license of some files was changed such that all files in the Kernel and Support Library are licensed under LGPL, the files in the Basic Library are licensed under QPL. In particlar, all *.C files that end up in libCGAL.so are licensed under LGPL. I don't see any changes in the license since lgpl/qpl dual licensing. Previously, LGPL and QPL licenses were mixed for files in the Kernel and Support Library. This has been changed. BTW, there is no dual licensing, each file is either under LGPL or QPL. Unfortunately, no all license problems were resolved with the 3.1 release. Contrary to the statement in the top-level LICENSE file, there are many files without any copyright notice (and there is no default license clause). 1) Source files in include/CGAL/ and src/. No big deal, the appropriate copyright headers just need to be added. 2) Many, many files in demo/ and examples/ (source as well as images, data, ...) 3) The license situation for the documentation is unclear. Currently, the documentation is not part of the tarball, but there are plans to include the source for the documentation. [Part 3) is a minor problem; if 1) and 2) are solved, one could also remove the documentation from the Debian tarball and point users to the PDF on the CGAL website.] I'm in contact with the CGAL developers. I hope that these license issues are fixed in 3.2 which is scheduled for late spring. Regards, Joachim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:04:40PM +0100, Joachim Reichel wrote:
How does upstream release version 3.1 of CGAL, actually fixes these
issues?
The license of some files was changed such that all files in the Kernel
and Support Library are licensed under LGPL, the files in the Basic
Library are licensed under QPL. In particlar, all *.C files that end up
in libCGAL.so are licensed under LGPL.
ok. I got a different impression at first about the libCGAL.so.
After doing QPL-cleanup:
$ rm `grep -lr LICENSE.QPL .`
Build do fails. There seems to be some debug headers that the core
uses.
Fortunately it is rather easy to fix (either fixing the license of the
debug headers or the use of the debug header with an attached patch).
--
Toni Timonen toni dot timonen at iki dot fi
NP Solutions Ltd
Helsinki University of Technology
Department of Engineering Physics and Mathematicsdiff -rub CGAL-3.1-orig/include/CGAL/Nef_2/Polynomial.h
CGAL-3.1/include/CGAL/Nef_2/Polynomial.h
--- CGAL-3.1-orig/include/CGAL/Nef_2/Polynomial.h 2006-02-07
00:21:27.0 +0200
+++ CGAL-3.1/include/CGAL/Nef_2/Polynomial.h2006-02-07 23:29:44.0
+0200
@@ -35,7 +35,6 @@
#include cstddef
#undef _DEBUG
#define _DEBUG 3
-#include CGAL/Nef_2/debug.h
#include vector
diff -rub CGAL-3.1-orig/src/Polynomial.C CGAL-3.1/src/Polynomial.C
--- CGAL-3.1-orig/src/Polynomial.C 2006-02-07 00:21:26.0 +0200
+++ CGAL-3.1/src/Polynomial.C 2006-02-07 07:27:24.0 +0200
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@
#include CGAL/Nef_2/Polynomial.h
+#define CGAL_NEF_TRACEN(foo)
+#define CGAL_NEF_TRACEV(foo)
+
namespace CGAL{
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
Hi, How does upstream release version 3.1 of CGAL, actually fixes these issues? I don't see any changes in the license since lgpl/qpl dual licensing. -- Toni Timonen NP-Ratkaisut Oy Teknillinen Korkeakoulu/Teknillinen Fysiikka 040-5111863,GPG 0x7984A4FD, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ #45732842 irc://irc.npr.fi/#perunamaa signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
Recently, upstream release version 3.1 of CGAL that should fix the licenses issues. I will look into the package in the next weeks. Regard, Joachim
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
Hi, If the two licenses only applied to different libraries that linked to each other, they would be compatible, because the scope of the LGPL deliberately stops at the library boundary. However, the LGPL requires that all code which directly incorporates LGPLed code be LGPLed. [...] So any work based on the library must be licensed under the LGPL. Since the QPL is not compatible with the LGPL, the entire work is non-distributable. So what are the options for upstream? a) Relicense the code in a way that the work is redistributable, if possible DFSG-free. b) Split the library in (at least) two libraries, one (or more) for the LGPL code and one (or more) for the QPL code. (By splitting, I mean creating two (or more) static/dynmaic libraries, not splitting the package itself.) c) What about clause 7 of the LGPL: 7. You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library, provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the Library and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided that you do these two things: a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must be distributed under the terms of the Sections above. b) Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work. For clarification, as I understand it: Library = LGPL-part of the code library = the dynamic/static library (including QPL code) Would this be another option? Is there a piece of software that actually uses this clause? d) What about an exception with respect to clause 2c) of the LGPL? Something similar like the GPL-waiver for libssl? This would also be an option, right? Regards, Joachim
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
Joachim Reichel wrote: If the two licenses only applied to different libraries that linked to each other, they would be compatible, because the scope of the LGPL deliberately stops at the library boundary. However, the LGPL requires that all code which directly incorporates LGPLed code be LGPLed. [...] So any work based on the library must be licensed under the LGPL. Since the QPL is not compatible with the LGPL, the entire work is non-distributable. So what are the options for upstream? a) Relicense the code in a way that the work is redistributable, if possible DFSG-free. That would work. Note that if upstream likes the QPL, they would not need to give it up completely; they could choose to dual-license the work under the LGPL and the QPL, or under the GPL and the QPL, or under any other Free license and the QPL. As long as one of the license options is a Free Software license. b) Split the library in (at least) two libraries, one (or more) for the LGPL code and one (or more) for the QPL code. (By splitting, I mean creating two (or more) static/dynmaic libraries, not splitting the package itself.) That would work, but the resulting package would go into non-free, since it uses the QPL. c) What about clause 7 of the LGPL: 7. You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library, provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the Library and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided that you do these two things: a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must be distributed under the terms of the Sections above. I think this would mean accompany in the same package, so this is basically the same as the previous option, except that you could also provide a combined library. Again, the resulting package would go into non-free. b) Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work. For clarification, as I understand it: Library = LGPL-part of the code library = the dynamic/static library (including QPL code) Would this be another option? Is there a piece of software that actually uses this clause? d) What about an exception with respect to clause 2c) of the LGPL? Something similar like the GPL-waiver for libssl? This would also be an option, right? Assuming the authors hold the copyright to the entire work (meaning that they didn't incorporate any other LGPLed code), that would work. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs for details on the exception, and modify it to work with the LGPL instead of the GPL. Again, this option would only let the package go into non-free. - Josh Triplett
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: cgal Version : 3.0.1 Upstream Author : CGAL Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.cgal.org/ * License : partly LGPL, partly QPL (see below) Description : C++ library for computational geometry CGAL (Computational Geometry Algorithms Library) makes the most important of the solutions and methods developed in computational geometry available to users in industry and academia in a C++ library. The goal is to provide easy access to useful, reliable geometric algorithms. . The CGAL library contains: - the Kernel with geometric primitives such as points, vectors, lines, predicates for testing things such as relative positions of points, and operations such as intersections and distance calculation. - the Basic Library which is a collection of standard data structures and geometric algorithms, such as convex hull in 2D/3D, (Delaunay) triangulation in 2D/3D, planar map, polyhedron, smallest enclosing circle, and multidimensional query structures. - the Support Library which offers interfaces to other packages, e.g., for visualisation, and I/O, and other support facilities. . Homepage: http://www.cgal.org/ License: The library consists of three modules. The lower layers (Kernel and the Support library) are licensed under LGPL, the upper layer (Basic Library) is licensed under QPL. Code under LGPL and code under QPL is combined in one library. I've CC'ed debian-legal and I would like to know whether both licenses are compatible. Regards, Joachim -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux enterprise-e 2.4.26-jr87-enterprise-e #1 Fri Apr 30 19:58:04 CEST 2004 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Bug#251885: ITP: cgal -- C++ library for computational geometry
Joachim Reichel wrote: License: The library consists of three modules. The lower layers (Kernel and the Support library) are licensed under LGPL, the upper layer (Basic Library) is licensed under QPL. Code under LGPL and code under QPL is combined in one library. I've CC'ed debian-legal and I would like to know whether both licenses are compatible. If the two licenses only applied to different libraries that linked to each other, they would be compatible, because the scope of the LGPL deliberately stops at the library boundary. However, the LGPL requires that all code which directly incorporates LGPLed code be LGPLed. From the LGPL, version 2.1: The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. Pay close attention to the difference between a work based on the library and a work that uses the library. The former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be combined with the library in order to run. [...] The Library, below, refers to any such software library or work which has been distributed under these terms. A work based on the Library means either the Library or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Library or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term modification.) [...] 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The modified work must itself be a software library. b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. [...] So any work based on the library must be licensed under the LGPL. Since the QPL is not compatible with the LGPL, the entire work is non-distributable. The other issue here is that the QPL is not a Free Software license at all. See the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00233.html for details. The QPL requires that all changes are sent to the original author upon request, and that all license disputes are settled in Amsterdam City Court by the laws of the Netherlands. Both of these restrictions are non-DFSG-free. I would suggest asking the authors to dual-license their library under the QPL and the GPL, like Trolltech did with Qt. In addition to solving the freeness and compatibility problems, this would also makes the library GPL-compatible, which allows the huge number of GPLed programs to link with the library. (Incidentally, the libcwd package which raised the issue of the QPL seems to have been uploaded to main even after that discussion concluded that the license was non-free.) - Josh Triplett
