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

Re: OpenCascade license opinion

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:18:59 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > 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.
> Okay, though the Pine license itself has non-free terms (may not be
> redistributed with non-free software), where the OpenCascade license
> is a free license.

I was referring to the earliest Pine license terms, which, as explained
in the Linux Today story, included wording that could be interpreted as
a free grant of permissions, while upstream interpreted that in a
non-free way.

Anyway, I think you got what I mean.

> > Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
> Me neither.  Well, I'm a DD.  Where do we get ASOTODP, only after
> attempting to upload?

Don't get me started on SOTODPs, I would rather avoid starting a
controversy today...

Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the
list address, as I didn't ask you to do so.
Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists:

 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: pgpjFMKRmR0B2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: