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

Re: OpenCascade license opinion



On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:

[...]
> Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't
> see how it's relevant.

It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an
awkward way, thus making the work non-free.

> Which terms of this license correspond to the
> Pine terms,

None, AFAIK.

> or are non-DFSG free?

Requiring that modifications are sent back to the original author is a
non-free requirement.
The license text does not seem to include such a non-free restriction,
but upstream claims that the restriction is "clearly" present.

I think this situation is similar to the Pine one, that's why I pointed
that Linux Today story out...

I hope I clarified.

Usual disclaimers: 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: pgpbGjRWz2rYm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: