Licensing

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
User avatar
easyw-fc
Veteran
Posts: 3629
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:34 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by easyw-fc »

sliptonic wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:04 pm
easyw-fc wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:54 pm
sliptonic wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:47 pm Let's see what the internet magic wizard says....
I would suggest you to be in touch with layers at KiCAD teams .
Not my circus. Not my monkeys
if you are serious in trying to find a solution for FC, you should instead consider to contact a legal team instead of a "wizard".
IIRC KiCAD teams already solved the long time freecad.org domain issue...
Then it seems there is already a good level of collaboration.
kkremitzki wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:30 pm Hello all, the time has finally come for a "soft" announcement of something that has been in the works for quite some time. I say "soft" because it shouldn't be widely publicized outside the community just yet, so that once all the work is done, we can have a proper announcement.

With the help of the KiCad Services Corporation, we have acquired the long-sought-after freecad.org domain. freecadweb.org has served us well all these years, but a new and improved domain is very fitting for this new and improved era of the FreeCAD project we are entering.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53920
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Licensing

Post by chrisb »

I split this off topic discussion from viewtopic.php?t=76799&start=110#p670219

@easyw-fc, feel free to edit the subject of the first post to something more descriptive.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
wmayer
Founder
Posts: 20243
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:32 am
Contact:

Re: Licensing

Post by wmayer »

easyw-fc wrote:Moreover I cannot understand the difficulty for a company to be allowed to install a sw LGPL and not allowed to install a sw GPL.
Correct, using GPL sw in a company isn't a problem at all.
The only limitation would be if they would need to change the code to sell the modified sw without distribute the source code...
The GPL even allows it to modify the code without publishing the changes as long as the company doesn't sell the product. Only when the company starts to sell the product it must publish the sources.
See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... stedPublic
prokoudine wrote:This is not even the only instance where it affects FreeCAD. The sole reason LibreDWG is not shipped as part of FreeCAD is because it's GPLv3+
LibreDWG is a different story. At that time when it was considered to use it OCCT was licensed under its own license OCTPL which is similar to LGPL but some people argued that the OCTPL contains a section that makes it incompatible with the GPL. Because Coin3D at that time also was licensed under the GPL and already used by FreeCAD the combination of OCCT and Coin3D was considered problematic and the Debian project stopped distributing FreeCAD and Fedora hasn't even added it to its repositories.

Luckily many people started to talk to OCCT and convinced them to change their license to the LGPL. At the same time the company behind Coin3D lost its interest to further support the library and re-licensed the whole code under BSD-3.

So, from a licensing point of view it would now be possible to use LibreDWG or solvespace but it's a political decision that FreeCAD shouldn't link GPL code.
wandererfan wrote:To release FreeCAD as GPL so as to include GPL s/w, every FreeCAD copyright holder would have to agree to relicense their portion of the code as GPL. Anything that was not re-licensed would have to be replaced.
No, that's wrong. The combination is licensed as GPL but this doesn't affect the license of the LGPL code. Here is a matrix of all combinations of GPL and LGPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... patibility
It's almost everything allowed -- except combining GPLv2-only and GPLv3 because GPLv3 has added some more restrictions and thus became incompatible to the GPLv2
User avatar
thomas-neemann
Veteran
Posts: 11801
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
Location: Osnabrück DE 🇩🇪
Contact:

Re: Licensing

Post by thomas-neemann »

wmayer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:10 am ...
Thank you for the clarification
Gruß Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Thomas Neemann

https://www.youtube.com/@thomasneemann5 ... ry=freecad
User avatar
bambuko
Veteran
Posts: 2161
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: UK, England, North Devon

Re: Licensing

Post by bambuko »

wmayer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:10 am ...It's almost everything allowed -- except combining GPLv2-only and GPLv3 because GPLv3 has added some more restrictions and thus became incompatible to the GPLv2
thank you for clarification and the link!
so... what does it mean, please for the discussion about assembly workbench?
(back to original thread: viewtopic.php?t=76799 it was split from ;) )
I am using Link branch and Assembly3
you can also download ... and try it here
excellent Assembly3 tutorials here
wsteffe
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: Licensing

Post by wsteffe »

wmayer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:10 am So, from a licensing point of view it would now be possible to use LibreDWG or solvespace but it's a political decision that FreeCAD shouldn't link GPL code.
And what's about the RT solution ?
I think that he is using LGPL for his FreeCAD fork. But he uses GPLv3 for Assembly3 which is linked to py-slvs (but is it really linked or just used as a python script ?)

The main point is anyway that RT FreeCAD uses Assembly3 as an addon.
Is this breaking the GPLv3 license ? Or is it allowed to use a GPLv3 module as an Addon in a LGPL software ?
wsteffe
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: Licensing

Post by wsteffe »

I just rembered that I had to install py-slvs via pipe to use Assembly3.
So py-slvs (which is under GPLv3) is now part of my linux system and it is not included in FreeCAD+Assembly3.

I think that RT could well put also Assembly3 under LGPL. Calling a system function (as it may be considered a function installed in the python system) may not break any rule.
wsteffe
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: Licensing

Post by wsteffe »

BTW please notice that also the installation of py-slvs in the python system doesn't break any rule because python3 license is compatible with GPL.
wmayer
Founder
Posts: 20243
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:32 am
Contact:

Re: Licensing

Post by wmayer »

bambuko wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:32 am what does it mean, please for the discussion about assembly workbench?
IMO we can leave things as they are and let the user install the add-on. Or we can follow the suggestion of easyw-fc and offer two different versions of installers -- one that this LGPL and doesn't include A3 and a second installer that is under GPL3 and provides A3 and solvespace.

The question is who will do the extra work for a second installer because that needed to be done for Windows, macOS, Conda-packages, AppImages or Snap packages.
wsteffe wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:39 am But he uses GPLv3 for Assembly3 which is linked to py-slvs (but is it really linked or just used as a python script ?)
If linked or used by Python doesn't make a big difference according to the FSF. The interpreter loads the code at runtime and thus can be considered as a plug-in. Here is what the FSF says about it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins
Is this breaking the GPLv3 license ?
No.
Or is it allowed to use a GPLv3 module as an Addon in a LGPL software ?
This is perfectly allowed.
User avatar
sliptonic
Veteran
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Licensing

Post by sliptonic »

chrisb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 8:22 am I split this off topic discussion from viewtopic.php?t=76799&start=110#p670219
I wish you hadn't done that, or at least asked about it. This discussion isn't off-topic. It's highly relevant to the subject of how these workbenches are compatible (or not) with the core FreeCAD project. The discussion has remained constructive.
Post Reply