On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:09 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > A Dilluns 21 Abril 2008, Adam C Powell IV va escriure: > > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:25 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I haven't had much time for this recently, but my todo list consists > > > > of: > > > > > > > > * Switch to the tarball used by FreeBSD (and soon Gentoo) at: > > > > > > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/local-distfiles/thierry/ * > > > > Conduct a thorough license/copyright "audit" of the tarball to make > > > > sure we have everything documented in the copyright file. * Upload to > > > > non-free, will probably take several iterations to get in. > > > > * Separate out the non-free bits. > > > > * Upload to main with non-free parts in separate package, again > > > > will probably take several iterations. > > > > * Use Jason Kraftcheck's scripts to separate it into a few > > > > packages, and re-upload. > > > > > > Sounds like a good plan in general, but will the FreeBDS tarball stay > > > up to date with the upstream version? Well, maybe it's too early to > > > worry about that. > > I have followed this thread with a lot of interest. I don't think the > OpenCascade was free in the way to put it in debian, so to me it's a bit .... > I don't know in a polite words ... > <unpolite> > touch my b.. > </unpolite> > > than you spend a lot of hours in package some huge soft to nonfree. Well, I > know, they have their rights. But this kind of half-license half-open > half-nonfree are more problematic (and close) than open (free) and feasible.
As I see it, the license itself is free (can you find any non-free parts?). But right now a small handful of non-free bits, such as triangle, will prevent it from entering main. It will take some time to disentangle these bits, so why not first upload to non-free, then when we have time to disentangle it, then put the free majority in main? > Howeber, as all in this life has a lot of buts: > - if we have opencascade, another great free soft that use OpenCascade could > be inside. > - if we have opencascade, maybe they want to relax their license .... > > I don't know... just my feelings in this. We can try to begin a campain to > ask > to OpenCascade about a change in their licences .... but this is utopia. Right, we can't count on a license change, though it doesn't hurt to ask. And having it in non-free can be good as well, as you mention. > > > Yes, but I can't guarantee I can spend much time on opencascade. I'm > > > interested in free tools for 3D CAD, and as a first step I would like > > > to be able to display a 3D models from IGES files. Apparently FreeCAD > > > ( http://juergen-riegel.net/FreeCAD/Docu/index.php?title=Main_Page ) > > > can do this, but it needs Opencascade to compile. > > FreeCad seems a great soft. I have tested the deb package (with opencascade > inside. It would be nice to have a deb package ... at least in contrib. The FreeCAD libraries can go into contrib, but the main GPL app cannot -- unless Debian concludes that the OpenCASCADE license is GPL-compatible! At this point, I don't see why they wouldn't, but it's hard to tell. This is an issue for Salomé as well: it is LGPL, but it links with GPL Qt, so it can't go into Debian unless the OCC license is GPL-compatible and OCC will need to be in main. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
