OpenCascade Public License again

[Dan Horák]

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

[Tom Callaway]

On 2009-02-26 at 9:59:36 -0500, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; 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

[Dan Horák]

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(a)danny.cz&gt;
> 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

[Michel Salim]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; 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(a)danny.cz&gt; 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,

-- 
miʃel salim  •  http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS         •  msalim(a)cs.indiana.edu
Fedora       •  salimma(a)fedoraproject.org
MacPorts     •  hircus(a)macports.org

[Tom Callaway]

On 2009-03-02 at 15:12:10 -0500, Michel Salim <michel.sylvan(a)gmail.com&gt;
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