Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 02:45 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:20:24PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year:d * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00286.html concluded that the WildMagic license is non-free, but did not conclude anything about OpenCascade. Aurelien, did you contact upstream and receive any reply on the preamble status? I don't see anything in WNPP, nor in unstable, nor in incoming. Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any changes have to be sent back. Interesting. I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory note. Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload... If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or intends that it not be), then is it really free? The problem is that the current upstream is not the one that has written the code. The old copyright older (Matra) may have chosen the license before, and OpenCascade tries to change the meaning of the license without changing it, as their business is also to install OpenCascade on the customer machines. Well it's only an hypothesis, I can be completely wrong. I see. Then again they just released CADLinux which makes installation of Salomé and its dependencies much easier, so they should have no problem in practice with having Debian distribute it -- they must have done the calculation of how much installation business they'd lose, and decided it's worth the hit to broaden their potential customer base. So there's likely no exposure to Debian for distributing it, even if upstream thinks the free license is non-free. So where to put the package: main or non-free? I would say non-free. It's really easy to move the package from non-free to main when we are sure the license is DFSG compliant. And this way we haven't to wait before starting the packaging. Okay. I take this to mean that you haven't started the packaging. I've made a little start, which you can see (once it finishes uploading) at: http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/opencascade/ (at least full sources should be there within 1/2 hour) My GPG key is at http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/pubkey.txt There are comments on the package in README.Debian.html; I'd add from the latest build that: * Somehow make install DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp didn't install any header files; it didn't even make usr/include! So the package is effectively unusable. :-( So much for testing. * Because of filenames like config.h and init.h I wonder if the package should have its own subdir of /usr/include to avoid collisions with other packages... * There's something funky about rules such that if I do install: build it tries to run the patch-stamp target again. I can't for the life of me find the stupid flaw, and it's driving me nuts. Please let me know if you see it. * In the meantime, without that, it builds just fine under dpkg-buildpackage which does debian/rules build then fakeroot debian/rules binary. * I plan to put the .la files into the -dev package. * There are tons of warnings from dh_shlibdeps of the type debian/opencascade-tools/usr/bin/DRAWEXE shouldn't be linked with libpthread.so.0 (it uses none of its symbols). I'll need to do some makefile hacking to get rid of these before uploading. * D'oh! I accidentally put nonfree instead of non-free in the binary package descriptions... I'll deal with the other lintian issues another time. And see README.Debian.html which, in its next iteration, will actually describe the package... So, very preliminary, but release early, release often right? :-) Please also note that in the sources, the copyright header of triangle.c looks problematic. It is clearly non-DFSG free, and Open CASCADE doesn't seems to have any copyright on this file. They never answered me about that point. I see. Thanks for looking at it in such
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:18:59 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't see how it's relevant. It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an awkward way, thus making the work non-free. Okay, though the Pine license itself has non-free terms (may not be redistributed with non-free software), where the OpenCascade license is a free license. I was referring to the earliest Pine license terms, which, as explained in the Linux Today story, included wording that could be interpreted as a free grant of permissions, while upstream interpreted that in a non-free way. Anyway, I think you got what I mean. [...] Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Me neither. Well, I'm a DD. Where do we get ASOTODP, only after attempting to upload? Don't get me started on SOTODPs, I would rather avoid starting a controversy today... P.S.: Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address, while Cc:ing the list address, as I didn't ask you to do so. Please follow the code of conduct on Debian lists: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Thanks. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpqnQ6ssmnAo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:20:24PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: [Sorry to let the thread drop for so long] On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year:d * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00286.html concluded that the WildMagic license is non-free, but did not conclude anything about OpenCascade. Aurelien, did you contact upstream and receive any reply on the preamble status? I don't see anything in WNPP, nor in unstable, nor in incoming. Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any changes have to be sent back. Interesting. I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory note. Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload... If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or intends that it not be), then is it really free? The problem is that the current upstream is not the one that has written the code. The old copyright older (Matra) may have chosen the license before, and OpenCascade tries to change the meaning of the license without changing it, as their business is also to install OpenCascade on the customer machines. Well it's only an hypothesis, I can be completely wrong. I see. Then again they just released CADLinux which makes installation of Salomé and its dependencies much easier, so they should have no problem in practice with having Debian distribute it -- they must have done the calculation of how much installation business they'd lose, and decided it's worth the hit to broaden their potential customer base. So there's likely no exposure to Debian for distributing it, even if upstream thinks the free license is non-free. So where to put the package: main or non-free? I would say non-free. It's really easy to move the package from non-free to main when we are sure the license is DFSG compliant. And this way we haven't to wait before starting the packaging. Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't see how it's relevant. Which terms of this license correspond to the Pine terms, or are non-DFSG free? Please also note that in the sources, the copyright header of triangle.c looks problematic. It is clearly non-DFSG free, and Open CASCADE doesn't seems to have any copyright on this file. They never answered me about that point. I see. Thanks for looking at it in such detail! Perhaps that one part can be stripped out. AFAIK this file is essential in Salomé. Then we can re-implement it, starting with stubs which return errors. Do you know whether this is critical to core functionality, or just one of many side-features which a Salomé executable links against? If I remember correctly (I don't have the sources on my disk anymore), this file is quite big and used to create meshes, so it's difficult not to use it. But I think the license allow at least to redistribute it into non-free (I remember the license being for non commercial use only). The best is probably to get some details on that point, trying to contact OpenCascade once again about this point (the license of this file is in contradiction with their license). And if they don't answer, try to contact the author to this file. BTW, I haven't looked at the sources for some time, maybe this has changed, it would be a good idea to verify first. Let me know how I can help. I want my clients (and non-clients) to be able to install this easily on Debian and Ubuntu machines, so I'd be willing to put some time into the package(s). Unfortunately I currently don't have time to work on the packaging. However I will happily test the packages. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
[Sorry to let the thread drop for so long] On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 21:32 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year:d * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00286.html concluded that the WildMagic license is non-free, but did not conclude anything about OpenCascade. Aurelien, did you contact upstream and receive any reply on the preamble status? I don't see anything in WNPP, nor in unstable, nor in incoming. Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any changes have to be sent back. Interesting. I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory note. Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload... If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or intends that it not be), then is it really free? The problem is that the current upstream is not the one that has written the code. The old copyright older (Matra) may have chosen the license before, and OpenCascade tries to change the meaning of the license without changing it, as their business is also to install OpenCascade on the customer machines. Well it's only an hypothesis, I can be completely wrong. I see. Then again they just released CADLinux which makes installation of Salomé and its dependencies much easier, so they should have no problem in practice with having Debian distribute it -- they must have done the calculation of how much installation business they'd lose, and decided it's worth the hit to broaden their potential customer base. So there's likely no exposure to Debian for distributing it, even if upstream thinks the free license is non-free. So where to put the package: main or non-free? Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't see how it's relevant. Which terms of this license correspond to the Pine terms, or are non-DFSG free? Please also note that in the sources, the copyright header of triangle.c looks problematic. It is clearly non-DFSG free, and Open CASCADE doesn't seems to have any copyright on this file. They never answered me about that point. I see. Thanks for looking at it in such detail! Perhaps that one part can be stripped out. AFAIK this file is essential in Salomé. Then we can re-implement it, starting with stubs which return errors. Do you know whether this is critical to core functionality, or just one of many side-features which a Salomé executable links against? Let me know how I can help. I want my clients (and non-clients) to be able to install this easily on Debian and Ubuntu machines, so I'd be willing to put some time into the package(s). Cheers, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't see how it's relevant. It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an awkward way, thus making the work non-free. Which terms of this license correspond to the Pine terms, None, AFAIK. or are non-DFSG free? Requiring that modifications are sent back to the original author is a non-free requirement. The license text does not seem to include such a non-free restriction, but upstream claims that the restriction is clearly present. I think this situation is similar to the Pine one, that's why I pointed that Linux Today story out... I hope I clarified. Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpW6hCzaSTVk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 23:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't see how it's relevant. It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an awkward way, thus making the work non-free. Okay, though the Pine license itself has non-free terms (may not be redistributed with non-free software), where the OpenCascade license is a free license. Requiring that modifications are sent back to the original author is a non-free requirement. The license text does not seem to include such a non-free restriction, but upstream claims that the restriction is clearly present. I think this situation is similar to the Pine one, that's why I pointed that Linux Today story out... I hope I clarified. Okay, thanks. But the analogy would be better, and the outcome clearer, if the Pine license were itself free, which it's not. Here we have a free license, and non-free upstream interpretation, so it's not as clear where the package should go. Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Me neither. Well, I'm a DD. Where do we get ASOTODP, only after attempting to upload? Cheers, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
Francesco Poli wrote: On the other hand, maybe the Open Cascade license counts as an agreement, since the copyright holder says that you have to accept the license in order to download the software (i.e.: in order to become a lawful acquirer). Then, after you accepted the license, you are bound to comply with it even if you only want to use the software (without redistributing, modifying, and so forth...). Well, if you agree to a license and only then download the software, your actions regarding the software are regulated by the software. That's then your choice, just like it could be your choice to sign a nondisclosure agreement which would force you to remain silent on certain things. The interesting question is when and how you agree to a license. If the license is in the tarball, I don't think that downloading the tarball counts as acceptance. You need to be able to read the license before you can agree to it. If someone makes you go through a clickwrap construct, then you're bound to the license. If someone says this software is GPLv2; click here to download I am not entirely sure if I agree to GPLv2 when I click there to download. Yes, because here no one said that I have to accept the GPL in order to download the program. As a consequence, I can be a lawful acquirer without having to accept the license: at that point, I can exercise my lawful acquirer rights, being in absense of any agreement to the contrary. Don't forget to read John Halton's contributions to this thread. http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20071221.092547.8c15d022.nl.html If the phrase lawful acquirer is interpreted as someone who acquires the software in such a way that they have the right to use it, then you only become a lawful acquirer after accepting the license. (I'm still not entirely convinced this is the correct interpretation, as it significantly reduces the value of the article, but it is certainly a sensible interpretation) But maybe the following one, as well: the above reasoning is an attempt to better understand things and should not (yet) be taken as a set of conclusive statements on the subject. This is law; there's no such thing as a conclusive statement here. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:50:12PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I would say that, if I download software from a website, I am not the one who's creating the new copy: the web server is doing so, to satisfy my request, and the web server is operated by the copyright holder of the software (or by someone authorized by the copyright holder). When you download software, a copy is created on your computer, assembled from packets of data downloaded from the remote server. Your computer does not receive a complete copy, fully formed (and even if it did, the act of transferring that copy onto your hard-drive would itself be the creation of a new copy). So to repeat: a lawful acquirer, whatever else it means, means someone who acquires a *pre-existing* copy (i.e. a copy on a physical storage medium of some description). A downloader is not acquiring a pre-existing copy, but creating a new one. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:11:26 + John Halton wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:50:12PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I would say that, if I download software from a website, I am not the one who's creating the new copy: the web server is doing so, to satisfy my request, and the web server is operated by the copyright holder of the software (or by someone authorized by the copyright holder). When you download software, a copy is created on your computer, assembled from packets of data downloaded from the remote server. Your computer does not receive a complete copy, fully formed (and even if it did, the act of transferring that copy onto your hard-drive would itself be the creation of a new copy). So to repeat: a lawful acquirer, whatever else it means, means someone who acquires a *pre-existing* copy (i.e. a copy on a physical storage medium of some description). A downloader is not acquiring a pre-existing copy, but creating a new one. This is interesting. May I say that the copy that consists of network packets is created by the web server, while the copy on my hard-drive is created by me? If this is the case, may I claim that I am a lawful acquirer of the copy that consists of network packets? At that point, I may claim that the law allows me to create a copy onto my hard-drive because it's necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose... IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP, as usual. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpI5DXG8qBi2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:02:55AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: If this is the case, may I claim that I am a lawful acquirer of the copy that consists of network packets? At that point, I may claim that the law allows me to create a copy onto my hard-drive because it's necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose... Well, you could *try* running that argument. Let us know how you get on. ;-) John (PS - apologies for initially replying off-list. Hit the wrong button...) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:45:28 + John Halton wrote: I don't think there's a problem with making the licence binding on users or downloaders. Quite the contrary: someone who uses or downloads the software is performing an act restricted by the copyright for which a licence is required. That's why I asked for comments from real lawyers: I thought that, at least in some jurisdictions, using or (legally) receiving a work was not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Maybe I'm wrong, so please help me understand. Specifically for computer programs, some jurisdictions recognize the right to load and execute a program as an exclusive right of the copyright holder. The 1991 EU Copyright Directive for instance explicitly says so, but goes on to say that a lawful acquirer of software may load and execute this software. In a license contract the parties can make different arrangements. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML See articles 4(a) and 5(1). This should be present in Italian copyright law. If I'm not mistaken this is article 64bis(1) and 64ter(1) of the _legge di protezione del diritto d'autore_ http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs_new/en/it/it112en.html If the copyright holder makes a program available for download (or permits someone else to do so), then I would say that anyone who downloads the work is a lawful acquirer and therefore may execute the work without bothering with the license. Of course redistribution requires specific permission. In other words, in Europe I can download and use any GPL software even when I explicitly refuse to accept the GPL. A different case is exhaustion (what Americans call first sale). If I acquire a copy of a work on a physical carrier, I can use the work on that carrier without restriction, including redistributing it. This right does not apply to downloaded software. TINLA and all that. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: Specifically for computer programs, some jurisdictions recognize the right to load and execute a program as an exclusive right of the copyright holder. The 1991 EU Copyright Directive for instance explicitly says so, but goes on to say that a lawful acquirer of software may load and execute this software. In a license contract the parties can make different arrangements. The EU copyright directive formalised what was already the acknowledged position, at least in common law jurisdictions: namely that to use software generally involves making a copy of it (when the software is copied from a storage medium into RAM, for example), and hence requires the consent of the copyright owner. If the copyright holder makes a program available for download (or permits someone else to do so), then I would say that anyone who downloads the work is a lawful acquirer and therefore may execute the work without bothering with the license. I'm not sure I agree with that as a blanket statement. The problem is defining lawful acquirer, a term originating from a (largely) pre-downloading era. It should be noted that the UK implementation of these provisions refers to lawful *user*, which is defined as someone who has a right to use the program, whether under a licence or otherwise. Now it's possible the UK has misimplemented the directive here, but it seems more likely that the term lawful acquirer was always intended to mean someone who acquires the software in such a way that they have the right to use it. And the recitals to the directive emphasise that this is a limited exception to allow the reproduction technically necessary for the use of that program by the lawful acquirer. If the intention was to create something akin to a doctrine of exhaustion for software - so that only the original licensee needs to have a licence at all - then this would have been stated more categorically. It also seems to take us perilously close to the ever-popular Google Images fallacy - i.e. If it's on Google Images, you have the right to use it. In other words, in Europe I can download and use any GPL software even when I explicitly refuse to accept the GPL. For the reasons outlined above, I don't think it is as clear as that. It probably doesn't make a great deal of practical difference anyway, given that the GPL allows unrestricted use and modification in the absence of distribution/conveying. If you want to distribute/convey the software then you can only do so under the GPL. A different case is exhaustion (what Americans call first sale). If I acquire a copy of a work on a physical carrier, I can use the work on that carrier without restriction, including redistributing it. This right does not apply to downloaded software. Agreed. As I understand it, exhaustion only applies to resale (etc.) of copyright works that have previously been lawfully placed on the market within the EEA - i.e. I can sell books and CDs that I've previously bought. It does not extend to the right to restrict copying of the work, and that is why it is of little help as regards software. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
John Halton wrote: On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the copyright holder makes a program available for download (or permits someone else to do so), then I would say that anyone who downloads the work is a lawful acquirer and therefore may execute the work without bothering with the license. I'm not sure I agree with that as a blanket statement. The problem is defining lawful acquirer, a term originating from a (largely) pre-downloading era. True. In my view it does seem to be the intent - someone makes his own software available, and another person acquires a copy. Whether it's a free CD, a box bought in the store or a download from a site somewhere shouldn't make a difference. You acquire it, so you can use it. directive here, but it seems more likely that the term lawful acquirer was always intended to mean someone who acquires the software in such a way that they have the right to use it. Well, if a lawful acquirer is someone who has a right to use it, why would the Directive need to spell out they have the right to use it? By saying that a lawful acquirer can load execute the software, my reading is that the clause grants them some kind of permission. And the recitals to the directive emphasise that this is a limited exception to allow the reproduction technically necessary for the use of that program by the lawful acquirer. Yes, it's a very limited exception. You need to first get the software lawfully. Buy the box, get the CD for free or indeed download from the author's site. Things like that. And then you can only make the technically necessary copies. I would hope that that covers installation on a harddisk and executing the installed copy. It most certainly does not cover redistribution in any way, shape or form. In other words, in Europe I can download and use any GPL software even when I explicitly refuse to accept the GPL. For the reasons outlined above, I don't think it is as clear as that. It probably doesn't make a great deal of practical difference anyway, given that the GPL allows unrestricted use and modification in the absence of distribution/conveying. If you want to distribute/convey the software then you can only do so under the GPL. The practical difference is that the GPL introduces several additional terms that I have to agree with. The exclusion of liability, for one. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if a lawful acquirer is someone who has a right to use it, why would the Directive need to spell out they have the right to use it? Well, quite. That's probably why the UK implementation hides it away in section 50C under the bland heading Other acts permitted to lawful users. That says to me that the parliamentary draughtsman found it as baffling as I do. But to be precise, it isn't quite saying Someone who has the right to use the software has the right to use the software. It's saying Someone who has the right to use the software has the right to copy and adapt it to the extent necessary to enable them to do so. It still seems to be solving a non-existent problem, but you can see what it's getting at. It's like saying, Someone who has the right to park their car in this parking space has the right to drive their car onto that parking space. By saying that a lawful acquirer can load execute the software, my reading is that the clause grants them some kind of permission. Whereas my reading is that the permission granted by this clause is merely incidental to some other permission that makes them a lawful user. But I admit that I've not looked to see whether there is any case law or commentary on this point. The practical difference is that the GPL introduces several additional terms that I have to agree with. The exclusion of liability, for one. Fair point. Though if the GPL is non-contractual (or if it is a contract that a user can decline to accept) then it's difficult to see what liability the licensor would have anyway. The no warranty provision in the GPL is as much a statement of fact (in most cases) as anything else. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On 21/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've never seen cases or commentary on this point either. I suppose it wouldn't be worth the lawsuit. Even if my interpretation were to prevail, all it gets someone is the right to execute the software on the one computer he downloaded the work to. The only case I can find on s.50C is the Sony Messiah chip case from 2002. The judge in that case held that: The real question is whether an importer of a non-PAL Sony game may lawfully, in the country from which it is imported, would have any right to play the game in this country. That depends upon the existence of a licence to use the copyright work in this country. A quick forage on Westlaw suggests the following aspect as well: Article 5(1) is concerned with the lawful acquirer of an *existing* copy of the software (see the recitals to the directive). That is, Article 5(1) is a (limited) exhaustion of rights provision. However, when you download software, you are not acquiring an existing copy - you are creating a new one. Hence Article 5(1) does not apply. True. In business-to-consumer transactions the question if you can waive liability (and if so, how much) is a big one. It could thus theoretically become relevant if the consumer accepted a waiver at all. Agreed. But even in a B2C setting, first you have to establish whether there is any liability to the consumer in the first place. I don't think the Debian project or any of its upstream licensors have any liability towards me as a consumer - so the question of whether I could waive that liability doesn't arise. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
John Halton wrote: It's like saying, Someone who has the right to park their car in this parking space has the right to drive their car onto that parking space. Now I see what you mean. Fair point, I'll have to be a little more nuanced in my responses here. I've never seen cases or commentary on this point either. I suppose it wouldn't be worth the lawsuit. Even if my interpretation were to prevail, all it gets someone is the right to execute the software on the one computer he downloaded the work to. The practical difference is that the GPL introduces several additional terms that I have to agree with. The exclusion of liability, for one. Fair point. Though if the GPL is non-contractual (or if it is a contract that a user can decline to accept) then it's difficult to see what liability the licensor would have anyway. The no warranty provision in the GPL is as much a statement of fact (in most cases) as anything else. True. In business-to-consumer transactions the question if you can waive liability (and if so, how much) is a big one. It could thus theoretically become relevant if the consumer accepted a waiver at all. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:51:01 + John Halton wrote: [...] However, when you download software, you are not acquiring an existing copy - you are creating a new one. Hence Article 5(1) does not apply. Wait, who's creating the new copy, though? I would say that, if I download software from a website, I am not the one who's creating the new copy: the web server is doing so, to satisfy my request, and the web server is operated by the copyright holder of the software (or by someone authorized by the copyright holder). Consider this: a) My web browser sends an HTTP request to the web server, which could reply with a 403 forbidden error, or otherwise send a copy. b) I ask a friend of mine to give me a copy of his hand-written notes (for a conference talk I couldn't attend to, e.g.), he could refuse, or otherwise use the photocopier and give me a copy. c) I ask a friend of mine whether he can lend me his hand-written notes, he could refuse, or otherwise lend them for a day or so: during this day I use the photocopier to create a copy, then I give the original back to my friend. Downloading software is case a, which, IMHO, is much more similar to case b, than to case c. Again, and again: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpeQUi3byuKx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:44:16 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:45:28 + John Halton wrote: I don't think there's a problem with making the licence binding on users or downloaders. Quite the contrary: someone who uses or downloads the software is performing an act restricted by the copyright for which a licence is required. That's why I asked for comments from real lawyers: I thought that, at least in some jurisdictions, using or (legally) receiving a work was not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Maybe I'm wrong, so please help me understand. Specifically for computer programs, some jurisdictions recognize the right to load and execute a program as an exclusive right of the copyright holder. The 1991 EU Copyright Directive for instance explicitly says so, but goes on to say that a lawful acquirer of software may load and execute this software. In a license contract the parties can make different arrangements. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML See articles 4(a) and 5(1). This should be present in Italian copyright law. If I'm not mistaken this is article 64bis(1) and 64ter(1) of the _legge di protezione del diritto d'autore_ http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs_new/en/it/it112en.html Many, many thanks for this explanation. Hence, it seems to be a bit more complicated than how I thought, but, *in the absence of any agreement to the contrary* a lawful acquirer is not restricted in using a computer program, more or less as my understanding was. On the other hand, maybe the Open Cascade license counts as an agreement, since the copyright holder says that you have to accept the license in order to download the software (i.e.: in order to become a lawful acquirer). Then, after you accepted the license, you are bound to comply with it even if you only want to use the software (without redistributing, modifying, and so forth...). Is that correct? If the copyright holder makes a program available for download (or permits someone else to do so), then I would say that anyone who downloads the work is a lawful acquirer and therefore may execute the work without bothering with the license. Of course redistribution requires specific permission. It seems to make sense (and I really hope it works like that). In other words, in Europe I can download and use any GPL software even when I explicitly refuse to accept the GPL. Yes, because here no one said that I have to accept the GPL in order to download the program. As a consequence, I can be a lawful acquirer without having to accept the license: at that point, I can exercise my lawful acquirer rights, being in absense of any agreement to the contrary. Is that correct? A different case is exhaustion (what Americans call first sale). If I acquire a copy of a work on a physical carrier, I can use the work on that carrier without restriction, including redistributing it. This right does not apply to downloaded software. That's clear. TINLA and all that. Well, as far as I am concerned, I should add many disclaimers... IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP, for sure. But maybe the following one, as well: the above reasoning is an attempt to better understand things and should not (yet) be taken as a set of conclusive statements on the subject. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp7jMRoNtWHS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
Adam C Powell IV a écrit : On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : Greetings, I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable engineering tool under LGPL. That was my goal when I started to look at packaging OpenCascade. But there is a lot of work, as Salomé depends on a lot of libraries or softwares that are not yet in Debian. Really? The primary one seems to be OpenCascade, I don't see others that would be problematic. No they aren't problematic. But there is a lot of work to do given the number of libraries. It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year:d * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00286.html concluded that the WildMagic license is non-free, but did not conclude anything about OpenCascade. Aurelien, did you contact upstream and receive any reply on the preamble status? I don't see anything in WNPP, nor in unstable, nor in incoming. Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any changes have to be sent back. Interesting. I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory note. Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload... If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or intends that it not be), then is it really free? The problem is that the current upstream is not the one that has written the code. The old copyright older (Matra) may have chosen the license before, and OpenCascade tries to change the meaning of the license without changing it, as their business is also to install OpenCascade on the customer machines. Well it's only an hypothesis, I can be completely wrong. Please also note that in the sources, the copyright header of triangle.c looks problematic. It is clearly non-DFSG free, and Open CASCADE doesn't seems to have any copyright on this file. They never answered me about that point. I see. Thanks for looking at it in such detail! Perhaps that one part can be stripped out. AFAIK this file is essential in Salomé. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:53:29 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: Greetings, Hello! :) I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable engineering tool under LGPL. As a personal note, I can say that Salomé looks like a pretty interesting tool: I already knew about it (even though I haven't found the time to give it a try, yet...). For anyone interested in further details, the website is http://www.salome-platform.org/ and the RFP bug is #457075. It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year: * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. Firstoff, do these conclusions still hold? I noticed that at http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ there's a new license version identified as 6.2 and dated March, 2007. However, a wdiff run between the license text discussed in the above-cited thread and the current license text reveals very few differences: - version and date - some cosmetic fixes - address of Open CASCADE S.A.S Hence, I would say that the debian-legal analysis in the above-cited thread may be applied to the current license text, with the same conclusions. In addition to those conclusions, I would however like to make the following comments. The untitled section (shall we call it section 0 ?) states, in part: | Please read this license carefully and completely before downloading | this software. By downloading, using, modifying, distributing and | sublicensing this software, you indicate your acceptance to be bound | by the terms and conditions of this license. If you do not want to | accept or cannot accept for any reasons the terms and conditions of | this license, please do not download or use in any manner this | software. This clause attempts to make the license legally binding even to people who merely use or download the software (sections 2, 3, and 13 restate the same concept). This goes beyond what copyright laws (at least in some jurisdictions) allow copyright holders to do, if I understand correctly. On the other hand, there's more than copyright in the license text: patents and other unspecified rights. Any comment on this (especially from real lawyers) is appreciated. Section 14 states: | The Initial Developer may publish new versions of this License from | time to time. Once Original Code has been published under a particular | version of this License, You may choose to continue to use it under | the terms and conditions of that version or use the Original Code | under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by | the Initial Developer. This is a mandatory license upgrade mechanism. Here mandatory means that, when I release a contribution under the terms of this license, I cannot choose version 6.2 only: I am forced to also grant permissions under any subsequent version of the license published by Open CASCADE S.A.S, even though *I am not yet able to see which terms those subsequent versions will possibly include*. Compare this with the GNU GPL or later mechanism, where I am allowed to license under GPLv2 only and no one compels me to license my contributions under yet unknown terms. I don't think that this is a DFSG-freeness issue. Nonetheless, it greatly weakens the copyleft, is kinda scary and is enough to discourage me from contributing in any way to Open CASCADE. [...] Thanks for any help you can provide, You're welcome! ;-) and please CC me on replies. Done. My standardized disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpdIAOstLMie.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On 20/12/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This clause attempts to make the license legally binding even to people who merely use or download the software (sections 2, 3, and 13 restate the same concept). This goes beyond what copyright laws (at least in some jurisdictions) allow copyright holders to do, if I understand correctly. I don't think there's a problem with making the licence binding on users or downloaders. Quite the contrary: someone who uses or downloads the software is performing an act restricted by the copyright for which a licence is required. And to paraphrase GPL v.2: if you don't like this licence, there ain't another one you can rely on. On the other hand, there's more than copyright in the license text: patents and other unspecified rights. Quite. The use of the term Applicable Intellectual Property Rights is not terribly helpful. I don't think it makes the licence non-free, but it could cause problems if (for example) the term were regarded as including trade mark rights, say. | The Initial Developer may publish new versions of this License from | time to time. Once Original Code has been published under a particular | version of this License, You may choose to continue to use it under | the terms and conditions of that version or use the Original Code | under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by | the Initial Developer. This is a mandatory license upgrade mechanism. Here mandatory means that, when I release a contribution under the terms of this license, I cannot choose version 6.2 only: I am forced to also grant permissions under any subsequent version of the license published by Open CASCADE S.A.S, even though *I am not yet able to see which terms those subsequent versions will possibly include*. I don't think that is what the licence says. It may possibly be what Open CASCADE intend (given their track-record on the preamble). ;-) If you make modifications, those are licensed under the terms and conditions of ***this License*** (i.e. the same licence that you are relying on for your own use of the software). There is nothing in clause 14 that allows your licensees to change the terms on which your changes are licensed to them - clause 14 just says that if Open CASCADE change the licence for their own code, then you have a choice as to which licence you rely on as regards that code. You do not have that choice as regards code written by others - you have to continue to rely on the licence under which they released that code. So clause 14 is about extending the choices available to users, not making the share-alike licence terms unpredictable for developers. And just to return to clause 5, a lightbulb just went off over my head. Clause 5 reads as follows: | You hereby grant all Contributors and anyone who becomes a party | under this License a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty-free and | irrevocable license under the Applicable Intellectual Property | Rights owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, modify, | distribute and sublicense all Your Modifications under the terms and | conditions of this License. This is probably what Open CASCADE are relying on for their return to upstream comment in the preamble. GPL only requires a share-alike licence back to the original author where you distribute (or convey, in v.3) your modifications to others. So Open CASCADE goes further than this - if you modify the software, those modifications are automatically licensed back to Open CASCADE. ***However***, there is no express provision requiring you to give them a copy of the modifications, and I'd be surprised if any legal system ***implied*** an obligation on the licensors of software to supply copies of the licensed software to its licensees. So I think that is why Open CASCADE *think* people have to send them their modifications, but my view remains that the licence terms themselves do not in fact require this, and hence the licence is not non-free. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: Adam C Powell IV a écrit : Greetings, I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable engineering tool under LGPL. That was my goal when I started to look at packaging OpenCascade. But there is a lot of work, as Salomé depends on a lot of libraries or softwares that are not yet in Debian. Really? The primary one seems to be OpenCascade, I don't see others that would be problematic. It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year:d * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00286.html concluded that the WildMagic license is non-free, but did not conclude anything about OpenCascade. Aurelien, did you contact upstream and receive any reply on the preamble status? I don't see anything in WNPP, nor in unstable, nor in incoming. Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any changes have to be sent back. Interesting. I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory note. Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload... If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or intends that it not be), then is it really free? Please also note that in the sources, the copyright header of triangle.c looks problematic. It is clearly non-DFSG free, and Open CASCADE doesn't seems to have any copyright on this file. They never answered me about that point. I see. Thanks for looking at it in such detail! Perhaps that one part can be stripped out. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:37:07 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 02:25 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: [...] Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any changes have to be sent back. Interesting. I think John Halton's point yesterday was correct: this is not a preamble (my fault for misusing the term), but an explanatory note. Based on that, I was getting ready to package and upload... If the upstream license is free, but upstream thinks it is not (or intends that it not be), then is it really free? Mmmmh, this situation looks terribly similar to the Pine one... http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07-02-025-21-OP-CY-DB Please note that pine is distributed in non-free, where it belongs. http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/pine Please remember that IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpegGxjAHHz3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:45:28 + John Halton wrote: On 20/12/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This clause attempts to make the license legally binding even to people who merely use or download the software (sections 2, 3, and 13 restate the same concept). This goes beyond what copyright laws (at least in some jurisdictions) allow copyright holders to do, if I understand correctly. I don't think there's a problem with making the licence binding on users or downloaders. Quite the contrary: someone who uses or downloads the software is performing an act restricted by the copyright for which a licence is required. That's why I asked for comments from real lawyers: I thought that, at least in some jurisdictions, using or (legally) receiving a work was not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Maybe I'm wrong, so please help me understand. U.S. copyright law[1] lists the following exclusive rights, if I understand correctly: copying/reproducing, modifying/creating-derivates, distributing, publicly performing/displaying, broadcasting. Italian authors' right law (legge sul diritto d'autore)[2] lists similar exclusive rights, if I understand correctly (anyone who can read italian legalese, see articles 12 through 19), and adds renting and lending. I couldn't find any exclusive right to use from a quick glance at the Berne convention[3], but maybe I'm just tired and sleepy now... [1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 [2] http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm#12 [3] http://wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html [...] | The Initial Developer may publish new versions of this License | from time to time. Once Original Code has been published under a | particular version of this License, You may choose to continue to | use it under the terms and conditions of that version or use the | Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this | License published by the Initial Developer. This is a mandatory license upgrade mechanism. Here mandatory means that, when I release a contribution under the terms of this license, I cannot choose version 6.2 only: I am forced to also grant permissions under any subsequent version of the license published by Open CASCADE S.A.S, even though *I am not yet able to see which terms those subsequent versions will possibly include*. I don't think that is what the licence says. It may possibly be what Open CASCADE intend (given their track-record on the preamble). ;-) Heh! :) If you make modifications, those are licensed under the terms and conditions of ***this License*** (i.e. the same licence that you are relying on for your own use of the software). There is nothing in clause 14 that allows your licensees to change the terms on which your changes are licensed to them - clause 14 just says that if Open CASCADE change the licence for their own code, then you have a choice as to which licence you rely on as regards that code. You do not have that choice as regards code written by others - you have to continue to rely on the licence under which they released that code. Maybe I overlooked the definition of Original Code, which means: | (a) the source code of the software Open CASCADE Technology originally | made available by the Initial Developer under this License, including | the source code of any updates or upgrades of the Original Code and | (b) the object code compiled from such source code and originally made | available by Initial Developer under this License. If I understand what you said, this is the key definition guaranteeing that section 14 only covers code licensed by Open CASCADE S.A.S and not contributions written by other people... If this is the case, then I apologize for raising a non-existent issue. Once again: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpGISdSHaJ0E.pgp Description: PGP signature
OpenCascade license opinion
Greetings, I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable engineering tool under LGPL. It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year: * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00286.html concluded that the WildMagic license is non-free, but did not conclude anything about OpenCascade. Aurelien, did you contact upstream and receive any reply on the preamble status? I don't see anything in WNPP, nor in unstable, nor in incoming. 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.). The no private modifications without sending them upstream part doesn't actually say that. I see it in section 4, provided that: You document all Your Modifications, indicate the date of each such Modifications, designate the version of the Software You used, prominently include a file carrying such information with respect to the Modifications and duplicate the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers attached hereto as Schedule B or any other notices or disclaimers attached to the Software with your Modifications. That's a pretty stringent requirement, but I'm not sure it makes it non-free. (This is what makes it more stringent than GPL/LGPL, and probably GPL-incompatible.) I think patch files in a package, or even the Debian .diff.gz file, should qualify as sufficiently describing the modifications and timestamps. A quick Google search turned up a Slashdot article claiming this is not OSD-free. But when I go to the article, a search for Cascade turns up nothing... Thanks for any help you can provide, and please CC me on replies. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
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]
Re: OpenCascade license opinion
Adam C Powell IV a écrit : Greetings, I just sent in an RFP for Salomé, a very nice and highly capable engineering tool under LGPL. That was my goal when I started to look at packaging OpenCascade. But there is a lot of work, as Salomé depends on a lot of libraries or softwares that are not yet in Debian. It depends on OpenCascade, which has a license which sounds DFSG-free. The license is at: http://www.opencascade.org/occ/license/ There were two discussions on the OpenCascade license last year:d * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html concluded: the In short preamble description is not free, but the license itself is, so an upstream declaration that the preamble is not binding would make it DFSG-free. * http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00286.html concluded that the WildMagic license is non-free, but did not conclude anything about OpenCascade. Aurelien, did you contact upstream and receive any reply on the preamble status? I don't see anything in WNPP, nor in unstable, nor in incoming. Yes I have contacted upstream about the preamble. They answered me vaguely about the whole license, saying that it is clear that any changes have to be sent back. Please also note that in the sources, the copyright header of triangle.c looks problematic. It is clearly non-DFSG free, and Open CASCADE doesn't seems to have any copyright on this file. They never answered me about that point. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
