Personal tools
You are here: Home Forum Salome license OpenCASCADE - is it free?

OpenCASCADE - is it free?

Up to Salome license
  • OpenCASCADE - is it free?

    Posted by damjan at December 09. 2006

    OpenCASCADE is required for the instalation of SALOME, correct? But theres an issue with its licence -

    thread starts at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00222.html ž

     

    [quote]

     

    > Public license

    > In short, Open CASCADE Technology Public License is LGPL-like with 
    
    > certain differences. You are permitted to use Open CASCADE Technology 
    
    > within commercial environments and you are obliged to acknowledge its 
    
    > use. You are also obliged to send your modifications of the original 
    
    > source code (if you have made any) to the Initial Developer (i.e. Open 
    
    > CASCADE S.A.S.). Complete text of the license is given below.
    
    
    
    The summary says the modifications should be sent to the Initial
    
    Developer (which isn't free), however nothing in the license itself says
    
    that. I think a statement acknowledging that this summary isn't binding
    
    would be a good thing to obtain.
    
    [/quote] 
    
    If Salome depended on a not DSFG and non FSD compatible licenced package, it would in 
    practice also be non free, and it would be misleading to point that Salome itself was LGPL 
    given such a dependency. So which is the case with OpenCASCADE licence, does someone know?
    • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

      Posted by Peter Dolbey at November 23. 2009

      Things have moved on in the last - specifically from Qt 4.5 (IIRC), Nokia has been distributing Qt with an LGPL license that means it can be used withoit forcing derived application to use GPL and can be used in commecial apps with out having to fully release source code.

      Pete

    • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

      Posted by Le TEXIER at November 17. 2009

      Dear OpenCASCADE manager.

      Once a year from 2006 people ask here the same question.

      May be you have ever answered somewhere ?

      If not, what is the main problem (a better fork ?).

      Thank you for your attention (and the great OCCT).

       

      Paul

    • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

      Posted by Luciano Alves at October 15. 2012

      Perdão, mas sou novo no Linux e estou encontrando uma série de dificuldades para me adaptar. Uma delas é encontrar um software CAE que seja gratuito. Estou usando o Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. Alguem pode me orientar a como instalar o SALOMÉ nele? Esse software é gratuito?

      luciano.alves@seesistemas.com.br

       

      • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

        Posted by Walliston dos Santos Fernandes at June 10. 2013

        Opa, tudo bem, Luciano? Então, baixe o pacote aqui no site e o execute simplesmente. É como se fosse um programa portátil. A versão atual é a 6.6, se não me engano. Qualquer dúvida só me contactar.

        Ah, é gratuito sim.

         

         

         

        Previously Luciano Alves wrote:

        Perdão, mas sou novo no Linux e estou encontrando uma série de dificuldades para me adaptar. Uma delas é encontrar um software CAE que seja gratuito. Estou usando o Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. Alguem pode me orientar a como instalar o SALOMÉ nele? Esse software é gratuito?

        luciano.alves@seesistemas.com.br

         

         

    • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

      Posted by wilsonred at April 16. 2007

      I agree with damjan concerning possible confusions regarding to LGPL and I'm waiting for explanations too. Thanks!

      • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

        Posted by Sergey Mozokhin at April 17. 2007

         

        wilsonred wrote:
        I agree with damjan concerning possible confusions regarding to LGPL and I'm waiting for explanations too. Thanks!

         

        I think there is no difficulties in mix of SALOME and OCCT (Open CASCADE Technology).

        SALOME itself has LGPL license. OCCT has LGPS-like license which does not say what license you must have for you own software which use OCCT (like for instance GPL does, which says that your soft must be also GPL).

        So, if you don't change OCCT (and I hope you don't do this :) ), you can use it with SALOME wihout any restricition.

        Regards,

        Sergey.

        • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

          Posted by Andriy Andreykiv at November 18. 2007

          Dear Sergey,

              Although Salome is distributed under LGPL like license, Qt (the GUI) library is not distributed under LGPL, but GPL.  Hence, if I understand right, the user who will link Salome against some commercial package that does not allow the source code disclosure (which is OK in certain limitted cases with LGPL) has to at least buy Qt commercial license, as, otherways, GPL will impose too stiff constraints with this respect?

          Could you please comment?

          Regards,

                          Andriy 

          • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

            Posted by Vadim SANDLER at November 19. 2007
            Hello Andriy,

            If you use SALOME to develop your own commercial software, you need to buy commercial license of Qt (and PyQt as well).

            Regards,
            Vadim.
            • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

              Posted by Adam Powell at January 20. 2008

              We discussed this on the Debian Legal email list again in December 2007.  See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00066.html

               

              The conclusion: the OpenCASCADE (OCC) license is free.  However, the explanatory note on the license webpage indicates that upstream believes that it requires that you send them all modifications, which would make it not free.

               

              As for Salomé and linking OCC with Qt, the question is: Is the OCC license GPL-compatible?  I don't know, haven't looked into it, and we didn't discuss it.

               

              Next question: does it even need to be compatible?  The Free Software Foundation interpretation of "derived work" is one in which a binary and libraries link together in a single process in memory.  CORBA components, RPC calls, etc. do not qualify as derived works.

               

              For this reason, if Salomé's architecture runs one CORBA component which links to Qt, and a separate one which links to OCC, then it is fine.  In this case, it doesn't even matter if OCC is completely proprietary, because the Salomé component linking to it is LGPL, and is separate from the component linking with Qt.

               

              Last question: does Salomé's architecture have any components which link to both Qt and OCC?  Unfortunately, yes.  On my system, ldd shows that SALOME_Session_Server links to /usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.3 and a whole slew of OCC libraries.

               

              This means that if the OCC license is GPL-compatible, there's no problem.  But if not, then by linking a GPL lib and a GPL-incompatible lib, Salomé might be in violation of copyright!  The only way around this would be to rewrite Salomé.

               

              This is only a problem for the Salomé developers if TrollTech decides to sue for copyright infringement due to violation of GPL terms, which is extremely unlikely.  But unfortunately, it may mean that Salomé will not become part of Debian. :(
              • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

                Posted by Andriy Andreykiv at February 25. 2008

                Dear Vadim and Adam,

                 

                I've just browsed lot's of FAQ's about GPL and I conclude that if someone creates a CORBA module that communicates with Salome, this module can be fully proprietary and the developer of this module doesn't even have to purchase Qt and PyQt commercial licenses, as he will not be locked with those libraries in one adress space, right?

                 

                This is controrary to what you were saying Vadim above, that such a developer would have to have commercial Qt and PyQt licenses. Please look what GPL FAQ says about it (but please, also comment what you think about the underlined paragraph):

                +++++++++++++++++++++++ from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html

                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified versions”

                An “aggregate” consists of a number of separate programs, distributed together on the same CD-ROM or other media. The GPL permits you to create and distribute an aggregate, even when the licenses of the other software are non-free or GPL-incompatible. The only condition is that you cannot release the aggregate under a license that prohibits users from exercising rights that the each program's individual license would grant them.

                Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

                If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

                By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                 

                Regards,

                                     Andriy

                • Re: OpenCASCADE - is it free?

                  Posted by Adam Powell at May 22. 2008

                  Hello,

                  First, Andriy is right regarding proprietary software connecting with Salomé via pipes.  You just have to make sure that the proprietary software doesn't link to the libs; if it does, you need a TrollTech license to distribute it.

                   

                  Next, I need to update my earlier post regarding the legality of Salomé .  For the combination of Qt and OpenCASCADE, there is bad news and good news.

                  First the bad: the OpenCASCADE Technology Public License (OCTPL) is definitely not GPL-compatible, so a GPL app or lib may not link with it.  In particular, the OCC license version 6.2 section 4 requires that:

                  "You document all Your Modifications, indicate the date of each such Modifications, designate the version of the Software You used, prominently include a file carrying such information with respect to the Modifications and duplicate the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers attached hereto as Schedule "B" or any other notices or disclaimers attached to the Software with your Modifications."

                  This is a restriction beyond the GPL, making it GPL-incompatible, even though they claim the license is like the LGPL.

                  Now the good.  If one does not use a GPL app/lib, one can use QT with the QPL, which has a much broader definition of free software for linking purposes than the GPL.  Under this definition, I'm pretty sure the OCTPL qualifies as a free license, and such code can link with QPL libs, such as Qt.

                  So I believe Salomé with the LGPL is okay, and might even get into Debian -- once OpenCASCADE is there.

                  -Adam
Powered by Ploneboard
Document Actions