[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

On 19/12/2007, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org> wrote:
> The preamble is:
>         In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like
>         with certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE
>         Technology within commercial environments and you are obliged to
>         acknowledge its use. You are also obliged to send your
>         modifications of the original source code (if you have made any)
>         to the Initial Developer (i.e. Open CASCADE S.A.S.).

Looking at the licence at http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/, it
seems pretty clear to me that the preamble is really just an
explanatory note (albeit an incorrect and even misleading one!)

On the page with the licence text, we find the page heading ("Public
license") followed by the introductory paragraph quoted above,
followed by the heading to the licence itself and then the licence

The introductory paragraph does not describe itself as a preamble, and
to use that term begs the question (since "preamble" would normally be
used as a legal "term of art", similar to "recital"). The critical
point to note from that introduction is its final sentence:
"***Complete*** text of the license is given ***below***" (emphasis
added). That seems to make it absolutely clear that the introductory
words do not form part of the licence.

That said, as ever in these situations, a clarification from upstream
is desirable if possible, if only because it is probably undesirable
to go against upstream's stated intention, even if that intention has
not been reflected in the actual licence text.



Reply to: