On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:09:45 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
Hi!
>
> I contacted upstream a number of times a couple of years ago, and never
> got any reply.
Please try again, the company seems to have been more responsive in
recent times.
As I said, I successfully used their con
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 10:53 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:09:45PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
> > * The statement that the copyright license is not a trademark
> > license is not in conflict with the GPL, and explicitly stated
> > as an option
Le Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:09:45PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
> * The statement that the copyright license is not a trademark
> license is not in conflict with the GPL, and explicitly stated
> as an option in GPL-3. I don't think anyone believes GPL-3 is
> inco
Hi Francesco,
I contacted upstream a number of times a couple of years ago, and never
got any reply.
That said, a couple of people convinced me that OCTPL is (now)
GPL-compatible, so FreeCAD is distributable, based on the following
points:
* The clause indicating "You are also obliged to se
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:49:15 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> As a consequence, if nobody else helps me by contacting upstream and
> persuading them to re-license under the LGPLv2.1, I am afraid that two
> serious bugs have to be filed against freecad and gmsh.
Nobody interested in helping fre
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:06:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote:
[...]
> The license was never really an issue. There was an explanatory note
> which contradicted the license and seemed to add non-free terms, but
> that is not the license.
As I summarized in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/200
cristian paul peñaranda rojas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was checking opencascade in lenny was in non-free, but in queeze
> is in main-free now :D
>
> So i guess the new license is okay with debian legal and free
> sofware, but can anyone in shorts word explainme why please :)
From the changelog at
7 matches
Mail list logo