Bug#617613: FreeCAD not in Testing

[Adam C Powell IV]

Hi Francesco,

On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 19:30 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:49:10 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:20 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [...]
> > > Yes, but I think freecad should not be released in a stable version
> > > (again) with this serious issue unsolved.
> > 
> > Indeed, a package with a copyright/licensing issue can't go into a
> > release, and can't go into testing.
> > 
> > IMO this isn't an issue,
> 
> Please let me understand:
> 
>  (0) you (still) don't think that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible
> 
> or
> 
>  (1) you agree that the OCTPL is GPL-incompatible, but you think that
>      this is not an issue for the package freecad linked with
>      libopencascade-*
> 
> Is it (0) or (1)?

It's 0, I don't see any clauses in the OCTPL itself which render it
GPL-incompatible, agreeing with Denis' interpretation.

> > and the fact that Debian allowed it into
> > unstable and the squeeze release indicates that the project probably
> > doesn't think so either.
> [...]
> 
> The issue may have been overlooked at first.
> If I recall correctly, the initial discussions about the OCTPL were
> mainly focused on its DFSG-freeness.
> The GPL-incompatibility issue was only raised later and was not
> immediately clear.

Indeed.

> When I filed the bug report, the GPL-incompatibility had been
> acknowledged by Open CASCADE S.A.S. itself (that is to say, the authors
> of the OCTPL!).

Do you have a link where they acknowledge GPL incompatibility?  The
preamble isn't part of the legally-binding text.

> > But until there's an official ruling on this issue, the package can't go
> > any further in Debian.
> 
> An official ruling on the fact that a GPL'ed package which links with
> both a GPL'ed library and a GPL-incompatible library has a serious bug?!?
> 
> I thought this was agreed upon long time ago within the Debian Project.
> I have seen so many packages with such issues reported as serious bugs
> (for instance for GPL programs linking with OpenSSL), that I think it
> goes without saying!

No, I meant that until December 2, Debian had not given an official
ruling indicating whether OCTPL is GPL-compatible.  Now they have issued
a ruling but without any clarity or justification.

I'm going to ask Joerg for a clarification on his email of December 2.

-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20111215/8c182957/attachment.pgp>