On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dan Horák <dan(a)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(a)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
miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS • msalim(a)cs.indiana.edu
Fedora • salimma(a)fedoraproject.org
MacPorts • hircus(a)macports.org