OpenCASCADE copyright/license audit

[Adam C Powell IV]

Greetings,

I've (finally) begun the arduous task of auditing the copyright(s)/
license(s) in OpenCASCADE.  Based on the number of files and
directories, this is bound to take a ton of time, so I'd appreciate some
help!  I've also solicited help on the OpenCASCADE forum, where I've
been discussing this with the Gentoo packagers.

I've put a brief start (6 of the 536 directories in ros/src) in:
http://www.opennovation.org/audits/opencascade-6.2.txt and will update
it as I and others work through this.  But before proceeding further, my
big question is: does this need any more information than it has?
Obviously the debian/copyright file will need the full text of all of
the licenses, but that's another matter.

Also, I built a new package based on the OpenBSD .tar.bz2 sources.  This
includes the audit file as debian/audit.txt and I'd like to make it the
basis of future packages.  One little hitch: as a Format 3.0 source
package, I don't think it can be uploaded before the lenny release
(because stable has to be able to unpack unstable sources).

Cheers,
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

[Teemu Ikonen-2]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> I've put a brief start (6 of the 536 directories in ros/src) in:
> http://www.opennovation.org/audits/opencascade-6.2.txt and will update
> it as I and others work through this.  But before proceeding further, my
> big question is: does this need any more information than it has?
> Obviously the debian/copyright file will need the full text of all of
> the licenses, but that's another matter.

May I suggest using the machine readable copyright format described at
http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat from the start? Since
the audit is going to be a huge task, it would be good to document it
in as formal way as possible. I made a partial conversion of the
current audit (files, copyright and license sections only) to this
format. You can find it attached to this mail.

> Also, I built a new package based on the OpenBSD .tar.bz2 sources.  This
> includes the audit file as debian/audit.txt and I'd like to make it the
> basis of future packages.  One little hitch: as a Format 3.0 source
> package, I don't think it can be uploaded before the lenny release
> (because stable has to be able to unpack unstable sources).

At least it works well here with the dpkg from lenny. Looking at the
size of the source package and the potential problems with missing
licenses etc. I don't think the upload to the archive will happen very
soon :)

Teemu

This file will describe the copyrights and licenses for all files in the
OpenCASCADE distribution.
Current status:
ros/src: 6/536 directories audited

Files: ros/src/Adaptor2d/*
Copyright: 1992-1995 Matra Datavision
License: other
 - Only .cdl files have copyright notices
 - No license mentioned

Files: ros/src/Adaptor3d/*
Copyright: 1992-1994, 1998 Matra Datavision
License: other
 - Only .cdl files have copyright
 - No license mentioned
 - Note: Adaptor3d_GenHSurface.lxx is newer (1995) than .cdl (1994)
 - Note: Adaptor3d_CurveOnSurface.cxx indicates modifications through 2002
 - Note: Adaptor3d_TopolTool.cdl indicates modifications through 2005

Files: ros/src/AdvApp2Var/*
Copyright: 1996-1997 Matra Datavision
License: other
 - Only .cdl files have copyright notices
 - No license mentioned
 - Note: AdvApp2Var_Patch.cxx is newer (1998) than .cdl (1997)

Files: ros/src/AdvApprox/*
Copyright: 1993-1996 Matra Datavision
License: other

Files: ros/src/AIS/*
Copyright: 1992, 1995-1998, 2000-2001 Matra Datavision
License: other
 - Only .cdl files have copyright notices
   (Exception: AIS_Circle.cxx has copyright notice)
 - No license mentioned
 - Note: AIS.cdl indicates modifications through 2003
 - Note: AIS_NDataMapOfTransientIteratorOfListTransient.hxx indicates creation date is 2003
 - Note: AIS_NListIteratorOfListTransient.hxx indicates creation date is 2003
 - Note: AIS_NListTransient.hxx indicates creation date is 2003

Files: ros/src/Triangle/*
Copyright:
License: other
 - Triangle_CMPLRS.edl occcallback.cxx Copyright 2003 Open CASCADE, no license
 - Triangle.hxx Copyright 2004 Open CASCADE, no license
 - triangle.c:
   Copyright 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2002 Jonathan Richard Shewchuk
 * NON-FREE LICENSE forbids receiving compensation for distribution and
   requires direct arrangement with author if "part of a commercial system".
 - triangle.h:
   Copyright 1996 Jonathan Richard Shewchuk
   No license mentioned

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 15:35 +0200, Teemu Ikonen wrote:

> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> > I've put a brief start (6 of the 536 directories in ros/src) in:
> > http://www.opennovation.org/audits/opencascade-6.2.txt and will update
> > it as I and others work through this.  But before proceeding further, my
> > big question is: does this need any more information than it has?
> > Obviously the debian/copyright file will need the full text of all of
> > the licenses, but that's another matter.
>
> May I suggest using the machine readable copyright format described at
> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat from the start? Since
> the audit is going to be a huge task, it would be good to document it
> in as formal way as possible. I made a partial conversion of the
> current audit (files, copyright and license sections only) to this
> format. You can find it attached to this mail.

Terrific, this is exactly why I sent this so early.  I think we can
probably simplify the file a bit by grouping a bunch of directories
together with similar copyrights and licenses.  Ah, "Match order" will
make this a lot easier, for the final copyright file.

Is there no way to distinguish other/free licenses from other/non-free?
I'll propose this...

I'll change the copyright file to this format for my next upload.

> > Also, I built a new package based on the OpenBSD .tar.bz2 sources.  This
> > includes the audit file as debian/audit.txt and I'd like to make it the
> > basis of future packages.  One little hitch: as a Format 3.0 source
> > package, I don't think it can be uploaded before the lenny release
> > (because stable has to be able to unpack unstable sources).
>
> At least it works well here with the dpkg from lenny. Looking at the
> size of the source package and the potential problems with missing
> licenses etc. I don't think the upload to the archive will happen very
> soon :)

Indeed!  This .tar.bz2 is about half the size of my original .tar.gz,
and has about 20-30% fewer files, which is a good thing.  There are
separate FreeBSD tarballs for Java and other pieces of OCC, and gentoo
is using them for their packages too.

By the way, speaking of size, would anyone mind if I drop the static
libs from the -dev package?  They are enormous, they double the build
time and more than double the storage requirement, and I don't think
they are so important.

-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

[Sylvestre Ledru-3]

Hello Adam,

Le vendredi 09 mai 2008 à 09:33 -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
>
>
> By the way, speaking of size, would anyone mind if I drop the static
> libs from the -dev package?  They are enormous, they double the build
> time and more than double the storage requirement, and I don't think
> they are so important.
I think you can drop them without a doubt...

Sylvestre

[Leopold Palomo Avellaneda-2]

A Divendres 09 Maig 2008, Sylvestre Ledru va escriure:
> Hello Adam,
>
> Le vendredi 09 mai 2008 à 09:33 -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
> > By the way, speaking of size, would anyone mind if I drop the static
> > libs from the -dev package?  They are enormous, they double the build
> > time and more than double the storage requirement, and I don't think
> > they are so important.
>
> I think you can drop them without a doubt...

I agree, but please put two lines in the README.Debian about it.

Regards,

Leo


--
--
Linux User 152692
PGP: 0xF944807E
Catalonia

[Denis Barbier]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 12:27:08 -0400, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I've (finally) begun the arduous task of auditing the copyright(s)/
> license(s) in OpenCASCADE.  Based on the number of files and
> directories, this is bound to take a ton of time, so I'd appreciate some
> help!  I've also solicited help on the OpenCASCADE forum, where I've
> been discussing this with the Gentoo packagers.

Hi Adam,

I worked with Aurélien Jarno on an Opencascade Debian package a couple of years ago,
here is the debian/copyright file that I did write after a full license audit of
OpenCascade 6.1, I later checked files newly added to 6.2 and did not find any new
problem.  Hope this helps.

It was downloaded from
  http://files.opencascade.com/OCC_6.2_release/OpenCASCADE_Linux.tgz
installed with the provided installer and then repackaged.
* Following files have been removed for licensing reasons:
   samples/standard/java/java/HeavyToolTipManager.java
   ros/src/OpenGl/OpenGl_triangulate.h
   ros/inc/OpenGl_triangulate.h
   ros/src/Triangle/triangle.c
   ros/src/Triangle/triangle.h
   ros/inc/triangle.h
* 3rdparty/ directory has been dropped because it is useless in Debian.
* Following directories only contain Linux binary stuff and are dropped:
   ros/adm/Linux
   ros/Linux
   ros/lin
   samples/standard/java/adm/Linux
   samples/standard/java/Linux
   samples/standard/qt/Linux
   samples/tutorial/Linux
   tools/ocafbrowser/Linux
   uninstall
   wok/lib/lin

Note about copyright holders: Matra-Datavision bought CISIGRAPH on 1994, and
launched a spin-off named Open CASCADE S.A.S in 2000 to provide services
based on Open CASCADE Technology.

This package contains the following third-party programs:
  * GL2PS, an OpenGL to PostScript Printing Library
    Copyright (C) 1999-2004 Christophe Geuzaine <geuz@...>
    Released under the GNU Library General Public License, version 2 or later.
    On Debian systems, this license can be found at /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL

  * regex library
    Copyright (C) 1985 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later
    On Debian systems, this license can be found at /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL

  * GNU getopt
    Copyright (C) 1987, 88, 89, 90, 91, 1992 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later
    On Debian systems, this license can be found at /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL

  * a modified init.tcl script from tcl
    See tcl license below

  * Extended Tcl array procedures.
    Copyright 1992-1996 Karl Lehenbauer and Mark Diekhans.
       Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
       documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
       that the above copyright notice appear in all copies.  Karl Lehenbauer and
       Mark Diekhans make no representations about the suitability of this
       software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or
       implied warranty.

All other material is licensed by Open CASCADE S.A.S under the license below:
[...full text of Open CASCADE Technology Public License skipped...]
[...full text of tcl license skipped...]

Denis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:11 +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:

> On Wed, 07 May 2008 12:27:08 -0400, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I've (finally) begun the arduous task of auditing the copyright(s)/
> > license(s) in OpenCASCADE.  Based on the number of files and
> > directories, this is bound to take a ton of time, so I'd appreciate some
> > help!  I've also solicited help on the OpenCASCADE forum, where I've
> > been discussing this with the Gentoo packagers.
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> I worked with Aurélien Jarno on an Opencascade Debian package a couple of years ago,
> here is the debian/copyright file that I did write after a full license audit of
> OpenCascade 6.1, I later checked files newly added to 6.2 and did not find any new
> problem.  Hope this helps.

Wow, thanks very much, this helps tremendously!  I will reformat this in
the proposed copyright format, and hope to have something uploadable (to
non-free) soon!

Given that this cuts an enormous amount of time off package development,
I will convert the .tar.bz2 file to .tar.gz for -8, in order to target
this to lenny.

-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:51 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:11 +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 May 2008 12:27:08 -0400, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I've (finally) begun the arduous task of auditing the copyright(s)/
> > > license(s) in OpenCASCADE.  Based on the number of files and
> > > directories, this is bound to take a ton of time, so I'd appreciate some
> > > help!  I've also solicited help on the OpenCASCADE forum, where I've
> > > been discussing this with the Gentoo packagers.
> >
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > I worked with Aurélien Jarno on an Opencascade Debian package a couple of years ago,
> > here is the debian/copyright file that I did write after a full license audit of
> > OpenCascade 6.1, I later checked files newly added to 6.2 and did not find any new
> > problem.  Hope this helps.
>
> Wow, thanks very much, this helps tremendously!  I will reformat this in
> the proposed copyright format, and hope to have something uploadable (to
> non-free) soon!
>
> Given that this cuts an enormous amount of time off package development,
> I will convert the .tar.bz2 file to .tar.gz for -8, in order to target
> this to lenny.

I'm uploading 6.2-2 to http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/opencascade/ .  I
consider this a "beta test" before uploading -3 to NEW, so please look
it over and try it out!  The copyright and README.Debian.html files
should be complete now.

My last to-do before -3 will be to add "-release" flags to LDFLAGS in
Makefile.?m to do library versioning, which will get rid of the biggest
remaining lintian warning. (After that, only missing man pages remain.)
I also want to split the package using Jason Kraftcheck's scripts, but
won't have time for a while; perhaps it'll get done by the time Debian
rejects this version. :-)

Big thanks to Denis Barbier for the old copyright file, and to him and
Aurélien Jarno for actually doing the audit!  We just may see
OpenCASCADE in lenny...

Cheers,
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 14:57 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:51 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:11 +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > On Wed, 07 May 2008 12:27:08 -0400, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > I've (finally) begun the arduous task of auditing the copyright(s)/
> > > > license(s) in OpenCASCADE.  Based on the number of files and
> > > > directories, this is bound to take a ton of time, so I'd appreciate some
> > > > help!  I've also solicited help on the OpenCASCADE forum, where I've
> > > > been discussing this with the Gentoo packagers.
> > >
> > > Hi Adam,
> > >
> > > I worked with Aurélien Jarno on an Opencascade Debian package a couple of years ago,
> > > here is the debian/copyright file that I did write after a full license audit of
> > > OpenCascade 6.1, I later checked files newly added to 6.2 and did not find any new
> > > problem.  Hope this helps.
> >
> > Wow, thanks very much, this helps tremendously!  I will reformat this in
> > the proposed copyright format, and hope to have something uploadable (to
> > non-free) soon!
> >
> > Given that this cuts an enormous amount of time off package development,
> > I will convert the .tar.bz2 file to .tar.gz for -8, in order to target
> > this to lenny.
>
> I'm uploading 6.2-2 to http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/opencascade/ .  I
> consider this a "beta test" before uploading -3 to NEW, so please look
> it over and try it out!  The copyright and README.Debian.html files
> should be complete now.
>
> My last to-do before -3 will be to add "-release" flags to LDFLAGS in
> Makefile.?m to do library versioning, which will get rid of the biggest
> remaining lintian warning. (After that, only missing man pages remain.)
> I also want to split the package using Jason Kraftcheck's scripts, but
> won't have time for a while; perhaps it'll get done by the time Debian
> rejects this version. :-)
>
> Big thanks to Denis Barbier for the old copyright file, and to him and
> Aurélien Jarno for actually doing the audit!  We just may see
> OpenCASCADE in lenny...

And after three weeks in the NEW queue, OpenCASCADE was ACCEPTED this
morning into unstable!  Yay!

However, Denis pointed out a couple of significant flaws in the
packaging, such as a lot of missing files and the need to put /usr/share
files of the shlib package into a version-specific location.  Denis, can
you file a bug or two on this?

If anyone else has an application which uses OpenCASCADE, please help to
test the package so it will be as robust and bug-free possible for the
lenny release.

I think I will postpone re-splitting the package and ripping out the
non-free parts (which would put the package in main) until after lenny,
as uploading such changes would require another trip through the NEW
queue with even more scrutiny.  Not to mention that I haven't had time
for this in the five months since Jason proposed it, and that isn't
likely to change in the next couple of weeks.  (But I would gladly
accept patches!)

Thanks again to everyone who contributed so much to making this happen!

Regards,
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

[Teemu Ikonen-3]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> And after three weeks in the NEW queue, OpenCASCADE was ACCEPTED this
> morning into unstable!  Yay!
[...]
> If anyone else has an application which uses OpenCASCADE, please help to
> test the package so it will be as robust and bug-free possible for the
> lenny release.

Great! This means that Freecad can be uploaded to contrib, given
packages of high enough quality, that is. I will test the autobuilt
version of OpenCASCADE with Freecad soon.

Thanks for your work on this.

Teemu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2]

On 09/06/2008, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
>  And after three weeks in the NEW queue, OpenCASCADE was ACCEPTED this
>  morning into unstable!  Yay!

Awesome! Good job! This means it will make it into lenny? Very good news!

>  I think I will postpone re-splitting the package and ripping out the
>  non-free parts

I admit I haven't really been following the discussion which got very
technical, but now that it looks like I (er, we) have more software
readily available, I got curious. From the webpage, it looks like a
very powerful suite for numerical work, and I already see some things
I could use it for.

However, I am a strong believer in software freedom, especially,
*especially*, when it comes to scientific software (highest priority
for free software, in my opinion). I tried to understand right now
exactly why OpenCASCADE is non-free, and the restriction seems to be
about the method which modifications have to be published. Is this
correct? There also seems to be a plainly proprietary component in it?

I see this happen so frequently, by developers who seem to
misunderstand the nature or motive of free software, particularly the
GPL, and want to fix it, often producing non-free results.[1] Have you
spoken to upstream about a possible relicensing? I think upstream
seldom chooses to change licensing terms, but a polite request might
still be in order. I couldn't easily track down in the discussion if
you had already done so or not, and what upstream responded.

Congrats on the packaging,
- Jordi G. H.

[1] I myself am sometimes a slight perpetrator of this too. I would
like to create a license which forbids military use of my software,
but I err on the side of the many free lawyers and their often lauded
law-fu used in the making of the GPL, so I choose not to add such a
restriction. Not that I think my software is particularly useful for
the military, but if there is anything I could do to hinder
professional murderers worldwide, I would do it.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 19:01 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

> On 09/06/2008, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> >  And after three weeks in the NEW queue, OpenCASCADE was ACCEPTED this
> >  morning into unstable!  Yay!
>
> Awesome! Good job! This means it will make it into lenny? Very good news!
>
> >  I think I will postpone re-splitting the package and ripping out the
> >  non-free parts
>
> I admit I haven't really been following the discussion which got very
> technical, but now that it looks like I (er, we) have more software
> readily available, I got curious. From the webpage, it looks like a
> very powerful suite for numerical work, and I already see some things
> I could use it for.

Indeed, it's beautiful!

> However, I am a strong believer in software freedom, especially,
> *especially*, when it comes to scientific software (highest priority
> for free software, in my opinion). I tried to understand right now
> exactly why OpenCASCADE is non-free, and the restriction seems to be
> about the method which modifications have to be published. Is this
> correct? There also seems to be a plainly proprietary component in it?

There are two reasons.  First, there is a non-free component, the
triangle software which is part of libTKMesh.so, which has a number of
non-free aspects to its license.  But that's small and not hard to
remove.

The second reason is that although the OCTPL seems to be a free license,
upstream's interpretation of it is not.  The paragraph starting with "In
short" on http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ introduces the
non-free requirement that one send all modifications to them, which is
nowhere in the license itself.

As mentioned, I'm going to try to rip out triangle and get the rest into
main for lenny+1.

> I see this happen so frequently, by developers who seem to
> misunderstand the nature or motive of free software, particularly the
> GPL, and want to fix it, often producing non-free results.[1] Have you
> spoken to upstream about a possible relicensing? I think upstream
> seldom chooses to change licensing terms, but a polite request might
> still be in order. I couldn't easily track down in the discussion if
> you had already done so or not, and what upstream responded.

I have tried to contact them, to no avail.  A couple of years ago Denis
Barbier and Aurelien Jarno tried to package OCC, and contacted upstream,
but didn't get any encouraging words in their replies.  For details, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00066.html for details.

> Congrats on the packaging,

Thanks!

> - Jordi G. H.
>
> [1] I myself am sometimes a slight perpetrator of this too. I would
> like to create a license which forbids military use of my software,
> but I err on the side of the many free lawyers and their often lauded
> law-fu used in the making of the GPL, so I choose not to add such a
> restriction. Not that I think my software is particularly useful for
> the military, but if there is anything I could do to hinder
> professional murderers worldwide, I would do it.

I guess you're probably not alone.  Then again, some military labs
contribute quite a bit to free software, e.g. the DARPAnet -> Internet.

Off-topic though...

-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2]

On 09/06/2008, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
>  The second reason is that although the OCTPL seems to be a free license,
>  upstream's interpretation of it is not.  The paragraph starting with "In
>  short" on http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ introduces the
>  non-free requirement that one send all modifications to them, which is
>  nowhere in the license itself.

Now, this part is downright bizarre. Further proof that tampering with
good things like the GPL comes from people who are confused with its
intent and purpose.

I hope that this doesn't mean that once you remove the triangle
software (Delaunay triangulation, is it, or something harder to
reimplement?), that upstream's confusion about their own license won't
stop it from trickling down to main.

- Jordi G. H.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 20:46 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

> On 09/06/2008, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> >  The second reason is that although the OCTPL seems to be a free license,
> >  upstream's interpretation of it is not.  The paragraph starting with "In
> >  short" on http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ introduces the
> >  non-free requirement that one send all modifications to them, which is
> >  nowhere in the license itself.
>
> Now, this part is downright bizarre. Further proof that tampering with
> good things like the GPL comes from people who are confused with its
> intent and purpose.

It is odd, isn't it?  IMO, the requirement of a distinct patch makes
this license more like the QPL than the LGPL which they claim.

As an aside, now that FreeCAD is fully LGPL (as of a couple of weeks
ago, not sure that the change has entered a release yet), it can legally
link to both OCC and QPL-licensed Qt, as can Salomé.

> I hope that this doesn't mean that once you remove the triangle
> software (Delaunay triangulation, is it, or something harder to
> reimplement?), that upstream's confusion about their own license won't
> stop it from trickling down to main.

We'll see in a few months...

-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

[Denis Barbier-4]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:16:06 -0400, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
[...]
> There are two reasons.  First, there is a non-free component, the
> triangle software which is part of libTKMesh.so, which has a number of
> non-free aspects to its license.  But that's small and not hard to
> remove.
[...]

Unfortunately this mesher is required for visualization; a better option
is to replace it by a free one, but this is much harder.

Denis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 09:16 +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:16:06 -0400, Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@...> wrote:
> [...]
> > There are two reasons.  First, there is a non-free component, the
> > triangle software which is part of libTKMesh.so, which has a number of
> > non-free aspects to its license.  But that's small and not hard to
> > remove.
> [...]
>
> Unfortunately this mesher is required for visualization; a better option
> is to replace it by a free one, but this is much harder.

I see, that's too bad.  You're right, libTKV3d and libTKDraw both depend
on libTKMesh, which has triangle.

In that case, we can have a separate non-free libtriangle, and put
OpenCASCADE in contrib.  Perhaps libTKMesh and libTKSTL (which also
depends on it) should go into Jason's proposed "Vis" package, instead of
"Core". Then WOK, Core and OCAF_Lite could be in main, and Vis, OCAF and
Test in contrib...  After lenny. :-)

Okay, first things first.  Please test the new 6.2-4 packages I put up
this morning in http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/opencascade/ (amd64 only,
i386 is building).  Thanks to Denis, DRAWEXE now works, and _OCC64 is
set properly, eliminating a crash in FreeCAD (see the SourceForge
FreeCAD Open Discussion forum for details).

I am planning three more changes for -5, which I'll upload soon (by next
Wednesday):
      * Configure with debugging messages off
      * Add DRAWEXE to the menu (running in a terminal)
      * Modify documentation to fit the Debian package

At that point, if people could please build for lots of architectures,
that would be great.  (Non-free packages don't autobuild, and in any
case, I wouldn't want to impose this gigantic package on the
autobuilders.)

I'm pretty excited, we'll have a high-quality OpenCASCADE, and maybe
FreeCAD, in Debian lenny and maybe Ubuntu intrepid!

-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/