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

Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages



A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure:
> 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?). 

yes, it's non free at least in 2006 when I asked it to debian-legal and I 
interchanged some private mails with Aurelien Jarno.

> But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as 
> triangle, will prevent it from entering main.  

tetgen?

> 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?

of course. But I don't think that it could be 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.

I asked in 2006 and I could ask again.

> > > > 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.

? 
it's gpl .... is public the discussion? It's just curiosity.

>
> 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.

It's a mistake a soft that links against GPL library is GPL. It couldn't be 
LGPL.

Regards,

Leo




-- 
--
Linux User 152692
PGP: 0xF944807E
Catalonia

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: