Re: Bug#464400: opencascade packages
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 19:43 +0200, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote:
> 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.
Really? Can you point me to a URL? I discussed it on debian-legal last
Fall (including Aurelien) and the conclusion was opposite: free license,
but upstream interprets it as non-free.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00066.html
> > But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as
> > triangle, will prevent it from entering main.
>
> tetgen?
Like I said, a handful. :-)
> > 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.
Do you know people there? If so, then please do ask! And you could
point out that their interpretation clause saying that people must send
changes upstream would make it GPL-incompatible, let alone non-free.
And that this would make FreeCAD and Salomé illegal.
> > > > > 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.
See above.
> > 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.
Well, it can be LGPL as long as the GPL library is optional. In the
case of Salomé, it has multiple components which interact using CORBA,
and it's possible that some might link with Qt and others with
proprietary code.
Unfortunately, there are binaries in Salomé which link with both Qt and
OCC (i.e. within a single component), so they must either assume that
OCC is GPL-compatible, or just ignore the licensing issues.
I discussed this a bit on the Salomé forum:
http://salome-platform.org/forum/?groupid=12&forumid=13&thread=1053
Nobody has directly addressed the issues I raised.
Thanks for the input,
-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: