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
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
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not
explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
This is currently relevant as the Parrot project is adopting the
orphaned Debian Parrot packages, and is now licensed only under the
Artistic License 2.0. (The
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:47:26PM +0200, Allison Randal wrote:
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not explicitly
reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
The text of the licence is at:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0
Looking at some of
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:47:26 +0200 Allison Randal wrote:
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not
explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
Before reading the license terms in detail, I gave a look at the FSF
license list[1], which states:
|
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not
explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
Debian considers the freedom of works, not license texts in isolation.
This is currently relevant as the Parrot project is
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 04:49:04 pm Ben Finney wrote:
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not
explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
Debian considers the freedom of works, not license texts in
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:49:04AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Artistic License 2.0 has been approved by the OSI, but not
explicitly reviewed by debian-legal. Would you like to review it?
Debian considers the freedom of works, not license texts in
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
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 04:49:04 pm Ben Finney wrote:
Debian considers the freedom of works, not license texts in
isolation.
Debian-legal reviews license text in isolation all the time.
Perhaps. However, Debian isn't interested in freedom of
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:49:04AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Debian considers the freedom of works, not license texts in
isolation.
Please stop saying this. To the extent that it is true, it's also
not relevant.
Debian *does* consider the
11 matches
Mail list logo
