From: Miles Bader (miles.bader_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-04 22:45:33
"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I think many users that would be otherwise OK with the LGPL would be
>> put off by this confusing situation, as I am.
> Of course. But I wasn't aware of it, and probably the Polyhedron
> author, and the Board, aren't either.
Ok. It's unfortunate that licensing is an issue, but it is.
> I consider this a "licensing bug". It might be fixable.
It would be great if it was.
>> I would never consider contributing to CGAL, nor using it, until they
>> straighten out the licensing.
> Fair enough. What would you propose?
I think ultimately, any use of (or indirect dependency on) the QPL in
core code is going to cause many people to avoid CGAL -- it's a widely
reviled license and causes major practical problems.
I would suggest that the only real solution is to relicense as much as
possible -- and at least the lower-level core primitives -- under a more
friendly license (GPL compatible, drop the restrictions on
redistributing modified source).
Obviously this requires cooperation from the authors, who might object,
but I don't think CGAL's really going anywhere in the FOSS world unless
If that's not possible, I guess at least an easy-to-understand diagram
showing the "effective" (including dependencies) licensing of each
package in CGAL might at least help users be less confused.
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk