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

Re: OpenCascade license opinion



On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:37:07 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
[...]
> > Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me
> > vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any
> > changes have to be sent back.
> 
> Interesting.  I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this
> is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory
> note.  Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload...
> 
> If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or
> intends that it not be), then is it really free?

Mmmmh, this situation looks terribly similar to the Pine one...
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07-02-025-21-OP-CY-DB

Please note that pine is distributed in non-free, where it belongs.
http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/pine


Please remember that IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpAi0XVqp9P_.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: