On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 20:46 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > On 09/06/2008, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org> wrote: > > The second reason is that although the OCTPL seems to be a free license, > > upstream's interpretation of it is not. The paragraph starting with "In > > short" on http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ introduces the > > non-free requirement that one send all modifications to them, which is > > nowhere in the license itself. > > Now, this part is downright bizarre. Further proof that tampering with > good things like the GPL comes from people who are confused with its > intent and purpose. It is odd, isn't it? IMO, the requirement of a distinct patch makes this license more like the QPL than the LGPL which they claim. As an aside, now that FreeCAD is fully LGPL (as of a couple of weeks ago, not sure that the change has entered a release yet), it can legally link to both OCC and QPL-licensed Qt, as can Salomé. > I hope that this doesn't mean that once you remove the triangle > software (Delaunay triangulation, is it, or something harder to > reimplement?), that upstream's confusion about their own license won't > stop it from trickling down to main. We'll see in a few months... -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part