Linking and licensing question

[Richard Shaw]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused. Which part of the license bans commercial use of OCC?
>
> Reading it again, that's indeed not the issue.
>
> You need to find out why the license was considered non-Free by Fedora.
> Whatever requirement caused that determination is almost certainly also
> incompatible with the GPL. I am no lawyer and I can't find the offending
> requirement at first glance, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'll try to summarize the reason but I think the link that I provided,
which includes input from Tom "Spot", has the reasoning. Basically the
wording differences as you noted and the fact that it requires
contributions to be given back to OCC (though they dispute this) are
the main reasons. The OCC group said that the requirement that code
changes be given back to them is really unenforceable because it's not
in the actual license body, just in the "pre" license text.

I'm not sure when or if it will happen but they are opening up
development and are trying to convince their management to allow a
switch to a more FOSS licenses, perhaps dual licensing under a GPL
license and their proprietary license.

Richard