hello, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 04:40:03PM -0600, Don Bright wrote: > CGAL 4.0 (beta released yesterday) is going to be GPL 3 so i reckon > this changes the whole conversation? On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:11:45AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > This looks like really good news! > Thanks for pointing it out. > > I hope the switch won't turn up being too painful... even better: the OGL_helper that was the base of our OGL_helper is relicensed without significant changes. i don't think there's anything wrong with applying the new license to the openscad OGL_helper. (they added a #include <CGAL/glu.h> line after the qgl.h import, we could pro forma add that too). switching to CGAL4 is good neverheless as it gets openscad from contrib to main, but not required for solving all our licensing issues. debian-legal, i've got two little questions remaining before i can get openscad ready for upload: * what's your opinion on releasing a debian package from the upstream tarball as it is (with the old qpl copyright header), stating in the debian/copyright file that the file was relicensed and thus, everything is ok? i'd go for that because it's less of a hassle; with the next release, all of that will be gone. * one file is LGPL licensed with the following addition: In addition, as a special exception, Nokia gives you certain additional rights. These rights are described in the Nokia Qt LGPL Exception version 1.1, included in the file LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt in this package. but LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt is not shipped. we don't require the exception (LGPL2.1 is fine for linking it into a GPL program), but someone (ftpmaster) could complain. should i act on it or is it sufficient to note the facts and be done with it? chrysn -- To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers. -- Bene Gesserit axiom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature