[Bug 458974] New: Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Summary: Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE
                    framework
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL:
http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/OpenCASCADE.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/8/SRPMS/OpenCASCADE-6.2.0-2.fc8.kwizart.src.r...
Description: The OpenCASCADE framework

This package is needeed for FreeCAD (among others).
It is reported to build on F-8 (tested x86_64), and fails in F-9
There is some bison generated files to fix (see debuginfo extraction) and see
if some files are needed from the original sources at runtime. (from samples
tools doc data).

This "early" Review Request is primary aimed to bring every packagers
interested in maintaining this package (and others for FreeCAD) to coordinate
the efforts..

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Dan Horák  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
             Blocks|                            |182235

--- Comment #1 from Dan Horák   2008-08-13 11:12:56 EDT ---
I am in contact with the Debian packager - their effort is at 
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/opencascade/
Set blocking FE_LEGAL as the status of the license is unclear - after
consulting with Spot I have moved it to the legal list
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-July/msg00037.html.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #2 from Dan Horák   2008-08-13 11:14:21 EDT ---
Another issue could be with the included "triangle" library (ros/src/Trianle).

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |459125

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
    Customer Facing|                            |---

--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2008-09-02 16:50:43 EDT ---
OpenCascade license is non-free. Given that Debian has been trying to resolve
the license issues with upstream and not having any luck, I'm not hopeful.

However, if you'd like me to explain the specific problems, I can do so.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts   2008-09-03 12:38:17 EDT ---
So, what should happen with this ticket?  I'm guessing we'll just have to close
it CANTFIX along with the FreeCAD review unless that package can somehow be
made not to depend on this one.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |CANTFIX

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Michal Schmidt  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Michal Schmidt   2009-07-28 07:34:27 EDT ---
I noticed that Debian now ships opencascade in their "main" section, not in
"non-free" anymore: http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/opencascade
> From Debian's changelog.txt:

opencascade (6.3.0.dfsg.1-1) unstable; urgency=low

[Denis Barbier]
  * New Upstream Version.  (closes: #501128)
  * Upstream replaced Triangle by a free implementation,
    thus external-triangle.patch is removed as well as
    dependencies against libtriangle-dev.
  * Remove ros/src/FontMFT/*.mft files, these font files
    have no sources.  (As a side effect, closes: #487116)
  * All non-free bits have thus been removed, and opencascade
    is moved from non-free into main.

The controversial "explanatory" paragraph which contradicted the terms of the
license (by requiring modifications to be sent to the initial developer) is not
present in the LICENSE file. (It's still present on the website though. See
http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ )

See the *.copyright file from Debian:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/o/opencascade/opencascade_6....

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |Reopened
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
         Resolution|CANTFIX                     |

--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov   2009-07-28 07:42:40 EDT ---
Good news.
Seems that it's time to re-open this ticket.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #7 from Dan Horák   2009-07-28 07:54:44 EDT ---
It should still be checked by Spot, because there were some discussions on the
OCC Forums about the details of the licensing terms and Debian's move into
"main" alone is not relevant for Fedora.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #8 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)   2009-07-28 08:13:21 EDT ---
I will update to 6.3.0 in few days so it can be seen by FE-Legal

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #9 from Dan Horák   2009-07-28 08:33:08 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> It should still be checked by Spot, because there were some discussions on the
> OCC Forums about the details of the licensing terms and Debian's move into
> "main" alone is not relevant for Fedora.

http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2009-07-28 09:59:20 EDT ---
Even without the preamble, the OCTPL is non-free for the reasons listed in the
thread link in Comment #9:

Section 7 says:

You may choose to offer, *on a non-exclusive basis*, and to charge a
fee for any warranty, support, maintenance, liability obligations or
other rights consistent with the scope of this License with respect to
the Software to the recipients of the Software ....

Except for the part delimited in asterisks, this would be free
though annoying. But limiting this permission to "a non-exclusive
basis" is bizarre. Why can't someone choose to offer support exclusively to
customer A but not any other customer? A fair number of FOSS licenses
have these upstream indemnification clauses, but we don't think we've
ever seen one limited to "non-exclusive" offerings of support and so
forth.

Moreover, if you read sections 6 and 7 together, you get the sense that
they're taking "may choose to offer" in a very literal sense, implying
that 'you only have the following very limited permission to offer
services surrounding the software' --
contrast that with, say, GPLv2 which says "you may at your option offer
warranty protection in exchange for a fee" -- this is intended to
clarify what ought to be obvious. In other words, in OpenCASCADE any
sort of services offering relating to the software is, in their view, a
forbidden 'additional term' unless it's covered under section 7.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Michal Schmidt  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |CANTFIX

--- Comment #11 from Michal Schmidt   2009-07-29 10:01:39 EDT ---
Thanks for pointing out the real problem of this license. Closing as CANTFIX
again.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2009-07-29 10:30:57 EDT ---
It's worth noting that I've again attempted to open a dialog with the
OpenCASCADE development team about relicensing this so we can include it in
Fedora. If anything comes from this, I will post it here.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #13 from Chitlesh GOORAH   2009-10-04 07:30:14 EDT ---
For the record:
I'm interested in opencascade as it seems to be used by openmoko developers.
With Fedora 12, we already have 60% environment for openmoko hardware
development.
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/55

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

Mildred  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #14 from Mildred  2011-10-03 03:57:25 EDT ---
It seems OpenCASCADE is included in debian, see
http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/opencascade

Apparently, they could resolve the license issues. Could this ticket be
reopened so we could include OpenCASCADE in Fedora?

I successfully modified a src.rpm of OpenCASCADE from OpenSUSE to adapt it to
Fedora, I could provide it for anyone interested.

[Bug 458974] Review Request: OpenCASCADE - The OpenCASCADE framework

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974

--- Comment #15 from Michal Schmidt  2011-10-03 04:42:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> It seems OpenCASCADE is included in debian, see
> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/opencascade
>
> Apparently, they could resolve the license issues.

No. The problem Spot pointed out in comment #10 is still there.