A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > 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 > > > 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 did a mistake, I saw his message in the debian-legal and I asked him directly. > 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 Yes, now I have read the thread and I begin to see the complexity. My attempts to contact with upstream where null. Only vague answers. In our private mails, Aurelien and I understand that it's not free software because the "preamble". Howeber, that part it's not the license, so? :-) But this is too thin for my taste ... I don't to put debian in problems. To me the best solution is to have a clear answer from Upstream, but this is difficult. > > > 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. :-) that's another soft interesting but no free software. [....] > > > > 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. Aurelien did it. I did it in the contact and I interchanged some "polite" mails with some people from there. But nothing clear. [...] > > > 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. Ok, but if you link with Qt of you are free soft or proprietary paying a licence to the Nokia people. > 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. Ignore the license issues. If really you have a component that link with OCC and QT and the license is not clear, really is a good reason to denounce them. > 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. Yes, it too complex and bizarre. > Thanks for the input, nops, thanks to you for the work done. Leo -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 0xF944807E Catalonia
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.