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 in
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
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
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
cristian paul peñaranda rojas p...@kristianpaul.org 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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
