Hi Spot,
you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them.
I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers.
URL of the discussion is http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/
related Review Request is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974
Dan
On 2009-02-26 at 9:59:36 -0500, Dan Horák dan@danny.cz wrote:
Hi Spot,
you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them.
I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers.
URL of the discussion is http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/
Dan, I've posted to that thread with the information about why that license is non-free.
Thanks,
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway píše v Čt 26. 02. 2009 v 13:28 -0500:
On 2009-02-26 at 9:59:36 -0500, Dan Horák dan@danny.cz wrote:
Hi Spot,
you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them.
I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers.
URL of the discussion is http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/
Dan, I've posted to that thread with the information about why that license is non-free.
Many thanks Spot. They are now looking for a standard license that will meet their requirements. Could you take a look at the forum once more?
Thanks, Dan
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dan Horák dan@danny.cz wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway píše v Čt 26. 02. 2009 v 13:28 -0500:
On 2009-02-26 at 9:59:36 -0500, Dan Horák dan@danny.cz wrote:
Hi Spot,
you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them.
I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers.
URL of the discussion is http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/
Dan, I've posted to that thread with the information about why that license is non-free.
Many thanks Spot. They are now looking for a standard license that will meet their requirements. Could you take a look at the forum once more?
I would not want to register for yet another forum, but we could suggest that they use MPL and/or CDDL? Dual-license it with LGPL or GPL if they need compatibility -- though once you go dual-licensing, ensuring that upstream can consume any modification would require copyright assignment.
Regards,
On 2009-03-02 at 15:12:10 -0500, Michel Salim michel.sylvan@gmail.com wrote:
I would not want to register for yet another forum, but we could suggest that they use MPL and/or CDDL? Dual-license it with LGPL or GPL if they need compatibility -- though once you go dual-licensing, ensuring that upstream can consume any modification would require copyright assignment.
I'm not a fan of MPL, and I'm definitely not a fan of CDDL. CDDL cannot die-off quickly enough.
~spot
-
Dan Horák -
Michel Salim -
Tom Callaway