Dylan: > I do not think that this act was intentional. Massimiliano: > I also don't think this was intentionally done
Nor, I. He was quite up front about the code heritage on his site; I consider this to be simply an oversight in the source code header comments which then caused another problem downstream. He undertook it partly as a learning experience, and I guess that's what it turns out to be. :) We all learn our lessons from time to time. I fully understand that assuming a port from libgrass to libgdal and C to C++ is not a verbatim copy so is ok seems reasonable at first, but if you read the text of the GPL2 license it is rather clear: "2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." I do not wish to assign any blame or give anyone a hard time, just to fix the technical problem so this nice tool can be cleanly released to the public. Hamish: > > It is pretty clear that the core methods of gdaldem were directly > > derived from a GPL work. Markus: > Are you really sure, Hamish? Yes, I am, although perhaps I should have thrown in the word "unintentionally". -- but that is irrelevant to the truth of the statement. gdaldem is based on Matt's Apache licensed version. Matt's code was derived from ~ GRASS 5.0.2-6.2.1 (GPL) and (for whatever reason) ended up relicensed without attribution under the Apache license. That is what my above statement refers to. That GRASS 5,6's version itself was based on a public domain work, and that we are able + willing to mention and now help verify that fact, is purely a matter of coincidence and good luck. update: Even, Helena, and myself have now looked through the old CERL version dug up by Markus. Even found one one item in r.slope.aspect but as far as I can tell that's in the CERL version already -- awaiting clarification. As far as r.shaded.relief goes there is a small contribution from Michael and one from Gordon Keith that are probably trivial but as to what constitutes a trivial change isn't for me to say, so I've asked them anyway. Other than that everything seems to be in the clear, thankfully. We've asked GDAL to cite GRASS 4.1 (CERL) in the header comments, and I think it would be nice to cite the Horn 1981 paper as well which contains the original slope algorithm. Once that is done I'll forward the patch to Matt and request he does the same and we can all move on. regards, Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc