Re: OpenCascade license opinion

[Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org>]

On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't
> > see how it's relevant.
> 
> It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an
> awkward way, thus making the work non-free.

Okay, though the Pine license itself has non-free terms (may not be
redistributed with non-free software), where the OpenCascade license is
a free license.

> Requiring that modifications are sent back to the original author is a
> non-free requirement.
> The license text does not seem to include such a non-free restriction,
> but upstream claims that the restriction is "clearly" present.
> 
> I think this situation is similar to the Pine one, that's why I pointed
> that Linux Today story out...
> 
> I hope I clarified.

Okay, thanks.  But the analogy would be better, and the outcome clearer,
if the Pine license were itself free, which it's not.  Here we have a
free license, and non-free upstream interpretation, so it's not as clear
where the package should go.

> Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

Me neither.  Well, I'm a DD.  Where do we get ASOTODP, only after
attempting to upload?

Cheers,
-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/