hello walter, hello debian legal, there has been some work and discussion going on on the openscad list based on your code, culminating in this mail i received from one of the developers. (don, sorry for my delay, i'm just home from holidays) could you make some statement on whether what don has done is sufficient to get us out of the license mess? ----- Forwarded message from Don Bright <hugh.m.bright@gmail.com> ----- Dear Chrysn I have re-implemented OGL_helper.h using different code. I rewrote the whole thing. It was a 'dirty room' implementation though, not clean room. The code is almost entirely different (you cant for example set the GLU tessellation winding order without calling the single function that sets the GLU tessellation winding order, so that line is the same), but some of the design is the same. After all, there aren't that many ways to write a for loop (and in fact one part of mine uses a while loop instead of a for loop). I need guidance on the copyright issue. Is my re-implementation still considered QPL under the Max Planck institute copyright? Or is it my copyright, so I can put it under GPL? I have asked the OpenSCAD mailing list, and got one response from someone who says they worked for Novell in the past but were not a lawyer. I asked on the CGAL discussion list what the Max Planck Institute would think, and got no response. I asked the guy who wrote the original OGL_helper.h , Peter Hachenberger, and also got no response. Can you or anyone at Debian help? Thanks -Don B ----- End forwarded message ----- thanks chrysn
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature