Bug#505224: RFP: freecad -- An extensible CAx program (alpha)

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:18:45PM +0100, Teemu Ikonen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Denis Barbier <bouzim@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2009/2/10, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Robert, I owe you an answer on why the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible.
> >> IANAL, TINLA, TINASOTODP, etc. but here goes:
> >>      * 4. para 4: "If you distribute or sublicense the Software (as
> >>        modified by You or on Your behalf as the case may be), You cause
> >>        such Software to be licensed as a whole, at no charge, to all
> >>        third parties..."  The GPL does not require "at no charge", and
> >>        even expressly allows charging for software, so this is an
> >>        additional restriction beyond the GPL.
> >
> > GPL 2, section 2.b)
> >    You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> >    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> >    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> >    parties under the terms of this License.
> >
> >>      * 4. para 5: "You document all Your Modifications, indicate the
> >>        date of each such Modifications, designate the version of the
> >>        Software You used..."  None of this is required by the GPL, so
> >>        all of these are additional restrictions.
> >
> > GPL 2, section 2.a)
> >    You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> >    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> >
> > To me, OCTPL 6.3 (as found in OpenCascade sources, not the one
> > at the website, which is outdated IIRC) is identical to LGPL 2.1, they
> > paraphrased it, and I believe that OCTPL 6.3 is compatible with GPL.
> 
> Interesting. I assume this would mean that works combining GPL and
> OCTPL code (such as FreeCAD) would be acceptable to Debian main?
> 
> Would it make sense to send a note about the GPL compatibility of
> OCTPL and its similarity to LGPL to the FTP-master? Maybe this would
> get OpenCascade out of the NEW queue, it's been sitting there 4 months
> already.

I have two questions:

  - Why not discuss it in debian-legal?

  - If they're effectively the same, why did they bother writing a new
    license?  Perhaps their interpretation is not the same.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."