Re: OpenCASCADE ACCEPTED!
On 09/06/2008, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org> wrote:
> And after three weeks in the NEW queue, OpenCASCADE was ACCEPTED this
> morning into unstable! Yay!
Awesome! Good job! This means it will make it into lenny? Very good news!
> I think I will postpone re-splitting the package and ripping out the
> non-free parts
I admit I haven't really been following the discussion which got very
technical, but now that it looks like I (er, we) have more software
readily available, I got curious. From the webpage, it looks like a
very powerful suite for numerical work, and I already see some things
I could use it for.
However, I am a strong believer in software freedom, especially,
*especially*, when it comes to scientific software (highest priority
for free software, in my opinion). I tried to understand right now
exactly why OpenCASCADE is non-free, and the restriction seems to be
about the method which modifications have to be published. Is this
correct? There also seems to be a plainly proprietary component in it?
I see this happen so frequently, by developers who seem to
misunderstand the nature or motive of free software, particularly the
GPL, and want to fix it, often producing non-free results.[1] Have you
spoken to upstream about a possible relicensing? I think upstream
seldom chooses to change licensing terms, but a polite request might
still be in order. I couldn't easily track down in the discussion if
you had already done so or not, and what upstream responded.
Congrats on the packaging,
- Jordi G. H.
[1] I myself am sometimes a slight perpetrator of this too. I would
like to create a license which forbids military use of my software,
but I err on the side of the many free lawyers and their often lauded
law-fu used in the making of the GPL, so I choose not to add such a
restriction. Not that I think my software is particularly useful for
the military, but if there is anything I could do to hinder
professional murderers worldwide, I would do it.
Reply to: