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

[Teemu Ikonen <tpikonen@gmail.com>]

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 at the website, which is outdated IIRC) is identical to LGPL 2.1, they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.

Teemu