Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:09 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure:
> > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:25 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > > > I haven't had much time for this recently, but my todo list consists
> > > > of:
> > > >
> > > > * Switch to the tarball used by FreeBSD (and soon Gentoo) at:
> > > >
> > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/thierry/ *
> > > > Conduct a thorough license/copyright "audit" of the tarball to make
> > > > sure we have everything documented in the copyright file. * Upload to
> > > > non-free, will probably take several iterations to get in.
> > > > * Separate out the non-free bits.
> > > > * Upload to main with non-free parts in separate package, again
> > > > will probably take several iterations.
> > > > * Use Jason Kraftcheck's scripts to separate it into a few
> > > > packages, and re-upload.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a good plan in general, but will the FreeBDS tarball stay
> > > up to date with the upstream version? Well, maybe it's too early to
> > > worry about that.
>
> I have followed this thread with a lot of interest. I don't think the
> OpenCascade was free in the way to put it in debian, so to me it's a bit ....
> I don't know in a polite words ...
> <unpolite>
> touch my b..
> </unpolite>
>
> than you spend a lot of hours in package some huge soft to nonfree. Well, I
> know, they have their rights. But this kind of half-license half-open
> half-nonfree are more problematic (and close) than open (free) and feasible.
As I see it, the license itself is free (can you find any non-free
parts?). But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as
triangle, will prevent it from entering main. It will take some time to
disentangle these bits, so why not first upload to non-free, then when
we have time to disentangle it, then put the free majority in main?
> Howeber, as all in this life has a lot of buts:
> - if we have opencascade, another great free soft that use OpenCascade could
> be inside.
> - if we have opencascade, maybe they want to relax their license ....
>
> I don't know... just my feelings in this. We can try to begin a campain to ask
> to OpenCascade about a change in their licences .... but this is utopia.
Right, we can't count on a license change, though it doesn't hurt to
ask. And having it in non-free can be good as well, as you mention.
> > > Yes, but I can't guarantee I can spend much time on opencascade. I'm
> > > interested in free tools for 3D CAD, and as a first step I would like
> > > to be able to display a 3D models from IGES files. Apparently FreeCAD
> > > ( http://juergen-riegel.net/FreeCAD/Docu/index.php?title=Main_Page )
> > > can do this, but it needs Opencascade to compile.
>
> FreeCad seems a great soft. I have tested the deb package (with opencascade
> inside. It would be nice to have a deb package ... at least in contrib.
The FreeCAD libraries can go into contrib, but the main GPL app cannot
-- unless Debian concludes that the OpenCASCADE license is
GPL-compatible! At this point, I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's
hard to tell.
This is an issue for Salomé as well: it is LGPL, but it links with GPL
Qt, so it can't go into Debian unless the OCC license is GPL-compatible
and OCC will need to be in main.
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/
Reply to: