On 19/12/2007, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The preamble is: > > In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like > with certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE > Technology within commercial environments and you are obliged to > acknowledge its use. You are also obliged to send your > modifications of the original source code (if you have made any) > to the Initial Developer (i.e. Open CASCADE S.A.S.).
Looking at the licence at http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/, it seems pretty clear to me that the preamble is really just an explanatory note (albeit an incorrect and even misleading one!) On the page with the licence text, we find the page heading ("Public license") followed by the introductory paragraph quoted above, followed by the heading to the licence itself and then the licence text. The introductory paragraph does not describe itself as a preamble, and to use that term begs the question (since "preamble" would normally be used as a legal "term of art", similar to "recital"). The critical point to note from that introduction is its final sentence: "***Complete*** text of the license is given ***below***" (emphasis added). That seems to make it absolutely clear that the introductory words do not form part of the licence. That said, as ever in these situations, a clarification from upstream is desirable if possible, if only because it is probably undesirable to go against upstream's stated intention, even if that intention has not been reflected in the actual licence text. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
