On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway píše v Čt 26. 02. 2009 v 13:28 -0500: >> On 2009-02-26 at 9:59:36 -0500, Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Spot, >> > >> > you will probably remember that you were checking the OpenCascade Public >> > License few moth ago. Now the question about its free/nonfree status was >> > opened on the upstream forum and it would be a good chance to express >> > our (or better RH Legal's) reasons that led to the decision that it is >> > non-free and possibly make upstream to resolve them. >> > >> > I am including the mail I got from Debian packagers. >> > >> > URL of the discussion is >> > http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/ >> >> Dan, I've posted to that thread with the information about why that >> license is non-free. > > Many thanks Spot. They are now looking for a standard license that will > meet their requirements. Could you take a look at the forum once more? > I would not want to register for yet another forum, but we could suggest that they use MPL and/or CDDL? Dual-license it with LGPL or GPL if they need compatibility -- though once you go dual-licensing, ensuring that upstream can consume any modification would require copyright assignment. Regards, -- miʃel salim • http://hircus.jaiku.com/ IUCS • msalim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora • salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MacPorts • hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
