Re: OpenCascade license?

Richard Shaw píše v Út 01. 11. 2011 v 08:57 -0500: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; wrote: > > Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500: > >> I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day > >> job and a "good" free CAD solution would be neat. > >> > >> It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their own > >> license[1]. They claim it's LGPL-like. Would this have to go in free > >> or non-free? > > > > per Tom "Spot" Callaway and Red Hat Legal it is non-free, you should be > > able to find the details in the archive of the fedora-legal mailing list > > and/or OCC package review request in Fedora bugzilla. > > > > OCC 6.3.0 is available from http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/ and it would > > be nice to see OCC in a more official repo. > > Well I took a look at your source package. Do you have any interest in > maintaining it in RPM Fusion? That was the original plan, but as you can see the package is still in version 6.3.0 while upstream (and Debian) has 6.5.0 already. Unfortunately I got quite busy with other work so I couldn't give OCC the needed care. > The reason I ask is I noticed the large number of patches that I'm not > sure I'm even qualified to maintain. I see some minor things that need > to be changed in the spec but overall it's in very good shape. The community around OCC is much alive in Debian, so I took the patches mainly from them, some are mine and they were sent to Debian. OCC is a large package and sharing the work is really necessary. The structure how are the libraries divided into subpackages is also copied from Debian, with the exception that there is only one devel subpackage.