Am Donnerstag 05 Januar 2012, 10:34:34 schrieb D. Barbier: > On 2012/1/5 Marko Knöbl wrote>: > [...] > > > pythonOCC links with both PyQt > > (GPL) and with OCC (GPL-incompatible). So I think that the distribution > > of pythonOCC is violating the GPL. The GPL would require all software > > which links with PyQt to be relicensed under the terms of the GPL as > > well. This is possible for software licensed under the LGPL (like > > pythonOCC), but not for OCC, which is licensed under the OCTPL. > > Hello, > > The situation with PyQt is different from the one in the Debian bug > report, it may in this case be considered as an "aggregate". > Open CASCADE also uses PyQt in http://www.salome-platform.org/, and is > fully aware of its license, see release notes: > Hereby we explicitly declare that PyQt 4 toolkit (Riverbank > Computing Ltd) is distributed under the terms of GPL license. > > [...] > > > Possible Solutions > > ------------------ > > Even though this issue has yet to be confirmed by others I'm already > > listing possible solutions here. These could be considered in order to > > resolve the issue if it is confirmed: > > 1) Have OCC relicensed under the LGPL: The author of the Debian bug > > report talks about a possibility of having OCC relicensed under the LGPL > > if there are enough people trying to persuade Open CASCADE S.A.S. > > See also this thread: > http://dev.opencascade.org/index.php?q=node/30 > Thanks for sharing this link and for your efforts to have OCCT relicensed under a GPL-compatible license.
> > 2) Get a linking exception in PyQt: PyQt already has 26 linking > > exceptions for many popular free software licenses, so asking its > > developer to add another one for the OCTPL might be successful. > > This is interesting. I wonder why there are so many linking > exceptions if combining PyQt is considered as an aggregation. Maybe > this assertion is wrong, after all, and Salome should not use both > PyQt4 and OCCT. This may be a very good incentive for them to switch > to a GPL-compatible license ;-) > As said in the URL above, I am fed up with those licensing problems, > but if you can contact Riverbank Computing to check with them whether > pythonOCC violates their license, that would IMHO be very helpful. > Please wait for Thomas or Jelle's approval before taking any action. > Actually the question if linking a program with a library makes it a "derivative work" or an "aggregate" is legally unclear.[1] Even the GNU's FAQ state that "This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide."[2] However the most common interpretation seems to be that linking does make the program a derivative work. In fact this interpretation was the reason why PySide was developed as an alternative to PyQt: The most significant differnce between these two bindings is their licenses. It's interesting to see that Salome uses PyQt. This could be very valuable when negotiating about having OCCT re-licensed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > > 3) Port pythonOCC to PySide: PySide is basically "PyQt under LGPL". > > Porting pythonOCC to PySide should be quite easy. > > Ok. > > > If action has to be taken in order to achieve license-compatibility I'd > > be happy to help by writing either mails or code. > > Thanks > > Denis > _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
