"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola@hotmail.com> 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 they do. 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. -Miles -- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.