Re: [hugh.m.bright@gmail.com: fixing openscad license issues with OGL_helper.h]
Hi Chrysn
CGAL 4.0 (beta released yesterday) is going to be GPL 3 so i reckon
this changes the whole conversation?
-DB
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM, chrysn <chrysn@fsfe.org> wrote:
> 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
Reply to: