OpenCascade license?

[Dan Horák]

Richard Shaw píše v Čt 03. 11. 2011 v 07:46 -0500: 
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz> wrote:
> > Richard Shaw píše v Út 01. 11. 2011 v 08:57 -0500:
> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz> 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.
> 
> I'll see if I can dig up the updated patches from them then. I
> downloaded the new 6.5.1 source which I noticed was about twice the
> size of the one in your SRPM. Did you remove some parts of the source?
> For instance, windows only portions or pre-compiled portions?

Oh, they started to release also the micro bugfix releases, that's
nice :-)

I have used the upstream source archive, while the Debian folks drop a
lot of stuff from it (see
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/o/opencascade/). I think the main
difference against 6.3.0 is in the size of documentation which is
pre-built. I will try to look at the 6.5.1 too, but can't promise any
dates.


Dan