Difference between revisions of "Licence/zh-tw"

From FreeCAD Documentation
Jump to: navigation, search
(Updating to match new version of source page)
(Updating to match new version of source page)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<languages/>
 
<languages/>
== Statement of the main developer ==
 
I know that the discussion on the ''"right"'' licence for open source occupied a significant portion of internet bandwidth and so is here the reason why, in my opinion, FreeCAD should have this one.
 
 
I chose the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL LGPL]  for the project and I know the pro and cons about the LGPL and will give you some reasons for that decision.
 
 
FreeCAD is a mixture of a library and an application, so the GPL would be a little bit strong for that. It would prevent writing commercial modules for FreeCAD because it would prevent linking with the FreeCAD base libs. You may ask why commercial modules at all? Therefore Linux is good example. Would Linux be so successful when the GNU C Library would be GPL and therefore prevent linking against non-GPL applications? And although I love the freedom of Linux, I also want to be able to use the very good NVIDIA 3D graphic driver. I understand and accept the reason NVIDIA does not wish to give away driver code. We all work for companies and need payment or at least food. So for me, a coexistence of open source and closed source software is not a bad thing, when it obeys the rules of the LGPL. I would like to see someone writing a Catia import/export processor for FreeCAD and distribute it for free or for some money. I don't like to force him to give away more than he wants to. That wouldn't be good neither for him nor for FreeCAD.
 
 
Nevertheless this decision is made only for the core system of FreeCAD. Every writer of an application module may make his own decision.
 
 
 
== Licences used in FreeCAD ==
 
== Licences used in FreeCAD ==
  
 
FreeCAD uses two different licenses, one for the application itself, and one for the documentation:
 
FreeCAD uses two different licenses, one for the application itself, and one for the documentation:
  
;[[wikipedia:LGPL|Lesser General Public Licence, version 2 or superior (LGPL2+)]]: For the core libs as stated in the .h and .cpp files in src/App src/Gui src/Base and all [[Workbenches|modules]] in src/Mod and for the executable as stated in the .h and .cpp files in src/main. The icons and other graphic parts are also LGPL.
+
'''[[wikipedia:LGPL|Lesser General Public Licence, version 2 or superior (LGPL2+)]]''' For all of the FreeCAD source code found in the [https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD official Git repository]
;[[wikipedia:Open Publication License|Open Publication Licence]]: For the documentation on http://www.freecadweb.org when not marked differently by the author
 
  
 +
'''[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/|Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (CC-BY-3.0)]''' For the documentation on http://www.freecadweb.org
  
See FreeCAD's [http://sourceforge.net/p/free-cad/code/ci/master/tree/package/debian/copyright debian copyright file] for more details about the licenses used by the different components found in FreeCAD
+
See FreeCAD's [https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/blob/master/package/debian/copyright debian copyright file] for more details about the licenses used by the different open-source components used in FreeCAD
  
=== Impact of the licences ===
+
== Impact of the licences ==
  
==== Private users ====
+
Below is a friendlier explanation of what the LGPL license means for you:
Private users can use FreeCAD free of charge and can do basically whatever they want to do with it: use it, copy it, modify it, redistribute it.
+
 
They are always master of their data, they are not forced to update FreeCAD, change their usage of FreeCAD. Using FreeCAD doesn't bind them to any kind of contract or obligation.
+
==== All users ====
 +
Anybody can download, use and redistribute FreeCAD free of charge, without any restriction. Your copy of FreeCAD is truly yours, as are the files you produce with FreeCAD. You will not be forced to update FreeCAD after a certain time, nor change your usage of FreeCAD. Using FreeCAD doesn't bind you to any kind of contract or obligation. The FreeCAD source code is public and can be inspected, so it is possible to verify that it doesn't do things without your knowledge such as sending your private data somewhere.
  
 
==== Professional users ====
 
==== Professional users ====
Can use FreeCAD freely, for any kind of private or professional work. They can customize the application as they wish. They can write open or closed source extensions to FreeCAD. They are always master of their data, they are not forced to update FreeCAD, change their usage of FreeCAD. Using FreeCAD doesn't bind them to any kind of contract or obligation.
+
FreeCAD can be used freely for any kind of purpose, being private, commercial or institutional. Any version of FreeCAD can be deployed and installed anywhere, any number of times. You can also modify and adapt FreeCAD for your own purposes without any restriction. However, you cannot make the FreeCAD developers liable for possible damage or business loss that could occur from using FreeCAD.
  
==== Open Source developers ====
+
==== Open-source software developers ====
Can use FreeCAD as the groundwork for own extension modules for special purposes. They can choose either the GPL or the LGPL to allow the use of their work in proprietary software or not.
+
You can use FreeCAD as a base to develop your own application, or simply extend it by creating new modules for it. If FreeCAD is embedded into your own application, you can choose either the GPL or the LGPL license, or any other license that is compatible with LGPL, to allow the use of your work in proprietary software or not. If you are developing a module to be used as an extension, and don't include any of the FreeCAD code in it, then you can choose any license you want. However, if you wish to see your module used as much as possible, it is a good idea to use the same LGPL license as FreeCAD itself, so parts of your code can be more easily reused in other future modules or even in FreeCAD itself.
  
==== Commercial developers ====
+
==== Closed-source software developers ====
Commercial developers can use FreeCAD as the groundwork for their own extension modules for special purposes and are not forced to make their modules open source. They can use all modules which use the LGPL. They are allowed to distribute FreeCAD along with their proprietary software. They will get the support of the author(s) as long as it is not a one way street.
+
You can use FreeCAD as a base for your own application, and are not forced to make your application open source. The LGPL license, however, ask for two basic things: 1) that you clearly inform your users that your application is using FreeCAD and that FreeCAD is LGPL-licensed, and 2) that you clearly separate your own application form the FreeCAD components. That is usually done by either dynamically linking to the FreeCAD components, so users are allowed to change it, or making the FreeCAD source code, along with the modifications you brought to it, available to your users. You will get support from the FreeCAD developers as long as it is not a one way street.
  
== OpenCasCade License side effects (for FreeCAD version 0.13 and older) ==
+
==== Files ====
 +
The models and other files produced with FreeCAD are not subject to any license stated above, nor bound to any kind of restriction or ownership. Your files are truly yours. You can set the owner of the file and specify your own license terms for the files you produce inside FreeCAD, via menu File -> Project Information.
  
The following is no more applicable since version 0.14, since both FreeCAD and OpenCasCade are now fully LGPL.
+
== Statement of the main developer ==
 +
I know that the discussion on the ''"right"'' licence for open source occupied a significant portion of internet bandwidth and so is here the reason why, in my opinion, FreeCAD should have this one.
  
 +
I chose the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL LGPL]  for the project and I know the pro and cons about the LGPL and will give you some reasons for that decision.
  
Up to Version 0.13 FreeCAD is delivered as GPL2+, although the source itself is under LGPL2+. Thats because of linkage of Coin3D (GPL2) and PyQt(GPL). Starting with 0.14 we will be completely GPL free. PyQt will be replaced by PySide, and Coin3D was re-licensed under BSD. One problem, we still have to face, license-wise, the [http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/ OCTPL (Open CASCADE Technology Public License)]. Its a License mostly LGPL similar, with certain changes. On of the originators, Roman Lygin, elaborated on the License on his [http://opencascade.blogspot.de/2008/12/license-to-kill-license-to-use.html Blog]. The home-brew OCTPL license leads to all kind of side effects for FreeCAD, which where widely discussed on different forums and mailing lists, e.g. on [http://www.opencascade.org/org/forum/thread_15859/?forum=3 OpenCasCade forum itself]. I will link here some articles for the biggest problems.
+
FreeCAD is a mixture of a library and an application, so the GPL would be a little bit strong for that. It would prevent writing commercial modules for FreeCAD because it would prevent linking with the FreeCAD base libs. You may ask why commercial modules at all? Therefore Linux is good example. Would Linux be so successful when the GNU C Library would be GPL and therefore prevent linking against non-GPL applications? And although I love the freedom of Linux, I also want to be able to use the very good NVIDIA 3D graphic driver. I understand and accept the reason NVIDIA does not wish to give away driver code. We all work for companies and need payment or at least food. So for me, a coexistence of open source and closed source software is not a bad thing, when it obeys the rules of the LGPL. I would like to see someone writing a Catia import/export processor for FreeCAD and distribute it for free or for some money. I don't like to force him to give away more than he wants to. That wouldn't be good neither for him nor for FreeCAD.
  
==== GPL2/GPL3/OCTLP incompatibility ====
+
Nevertheless this decision is made only for the core system of FreeCAD. Every writer of an application module may make his own decision.
We first discovered the problem by a discussion on the [http://www.fsf.org/ FSF] high priority project [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/polignu/XRergtwsm80 discussion list]. It was about a library we look at, which was licensed with GPL3. Since we linked back then with Coin3D, with GPL2 only, we was not able to adopt that lib. Also the
 
OCTPL is considered [http://www.opencascade.org/occt/faq/ GPL incompatible]. This Libre Graphics World article [http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning "LibreDWG drama: the end or the new beginning?"] shows up the drama of LibreDWG project not acceptably in FreeCAD or LibreCAD.
 
 
 
==== Debian ====
 
The incompatibility of the OCTPL [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/10/msg00000.html was discussed on the debian legal list] and lead to a [http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=617613 bug report on the FreeCAD package] which prevent (ignor-tag) the transition from debian-testing to the main distribution. But its also mentioned thats a FreeCAD, which is free of GPL code and libs, would be acceptably. With a re-licensed Coin3D V4 and a substituted PyQt we will hopefully reach GPL free with the 0.14 release.
 
 
 
==== Fedora/RedHat non-free ====
 
In the Fedora project OpenCasCade is listed "non-free". This means basically it won't make it into Fedora or RedHat. This means also FreeCAD won't make it into Fedora/RedHat until OCC is changing its license. Here the links to the license evaluation:
 
* [http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-September/001713.html Discussion on the Fedora-legal-list]
 
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974#c10 License review entry in the RedHat bug tracker]
 
The main problem they have AFIK is that the OCC license demand non discriminatory support fees if you want to do paid support. It has nothing to do with "free" or OpenSource, its all about RedHat's business model!
 
  
 
{{docnav|Dialog creation|Tracker}}
 
{{docnav|Dialog creation|Tracker}}

Revision as of 10:44, 27 August 2018

Other languages:
čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎polski • ‎română • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎Türkçe • ‎中文(中国大陆)‎ • ‎中文(台灣)‎

Licences used in FreeCAD

FreeCAD uses two different licenses, one for the application itself, and one for the documentation:

Lesser General Public Licence, version 2 or superior (LGPL2+) For all of the FreeCAD source code found in the official Git repository

Commons Attribution 3.0 License (CC-BY-3.0) For the documentation on http://www.freecadweb.org

See FreeCAD's debian copyright file for more details about the licenses used by the different open-source components used in FreeCAD

Impact of the licences

Below is a friendlier explanation of what the LGPL license means for you:

All users

Anybody can download, use and redistribute FreeCAD free of charge, without any restriction. Your copy of FreeCAD is truly yours, as are the files you produce with FreeCAD. You will not be forced to update FreeCAD after a certain time, nor change your usage of FreeCAD. Using FreeCAD doesn't bind you to any kind of contract or obligation. The FreeCAD source code is public and can be inspected, so it is possible to verify that it doesn't do things without your knowledge such as sending your private data somewhere.

Professional users

FreeCAD can be used freely for any kind of purpose, being private, commercial or institutional. Any version of FreeCAD can be deployed and installed anywhere, any number of times. You can also modify and adapt FreeCAD for your own purposes without any restriction. However, you cannot make the FreeCAD developers liable for possible damage or business loss that could occur from using FreeCAD.

Open-source software developers

You can use FreeCAD as a base to develop your own application, or simply extend it by creating new modules for it. If FreeCAD is embedded into your own application, you can choose either the GPL or the LGPL license, or any other license that is compatible with LGPL, to allow the use of your work in proprietary software or not. If you are developing a module to be used as an extension, and don't include any of the FreeCAD code in it, then you can choose any license you want. However, if you wish to see your module used as much as possible, it is a good idea to use the same LGPL license as FreeCAD itself, so parts of your code can be more easily reused in other future modules or even in FreeCAD itself.

Closed-source software developers

You can use FreeCAD as a base for your own application, and are not forced to make your application open source. The LGPL license, however, ask for two basic things: 1) that you clearly inform your users that your application is using FreeCAD and that FreeCAD is LGPL-licensed, and 2) that you clearly separate your own application form the FreeCAD components. That is usually done by either dynamically linking to the FreeCAD components, so users are allowed to change it, or making the FreeCAD source code, along with the modifications you brought to it, available to your users. You will get support from the FreeCAD developers as long as it is not a one way street.

Files

The models and other files produced with FreeCAD are not subject to any license stated above, nor bound to any kind of restriction or ownership. Your files are truly yours. You can set the owner of the file and specify your own license terms for the files you produce inside FreeCAD, via menu File -> Project Information.

Statement of the main developer

I know that the discussion on the "right" licence for open source occupied a significant portion of internet bandwidth and so is here the reason why, in my opinion, FreeCAD should have this one.

I chose the LGPL for the project and I know the pro and cons about the LGPL and will give you some reasons for that decision.

FreeCAD is a mixture of a library and an application, so the GPL would be a little bit strong for that. It would prevent writing commercial modules for FreeCAD because it would prevent linking with the FreeCAD base libs. You may ask why commercial modules at all? Therefore Linux is good example. Would Linux be so successful when the GNU C Library would be GPL and therefore prevent linking against non-GPL applications? And although I love the freedom of Linux, I also want to be able to use the very good NVIDIA 3D graphic driver. I understand and accept the reason NVIDIA does not wish to give away driver code. We all work for companies and need payment or at least food. So for me, a coexistence of open source and closed source software is not a bad thing, when it obeys the rules of the LGPL. I would like to see someone writing a Catia import/export processor for FreeCAD and distribute it for free or for some money. I don't like to force him to give away more than he wants to. That wouldn't be good neither for him nor for FreeCAD.

Nevertheless this decision is made only for the core system of FreeCAD. Every writer of an application module may make his own decision.