Re: [JPP-Devel] good news and congrats to Martin
Hi Martin, Many congratulations!!! Peppe Da: Rahkonen Jukka A: OpenJump develop and use Inviato: Giovedì 27 Ottobre 2011 6:56 Oggetto: Re: [JPP-Devel] good news and congrats to Martin Hi, Half seriously, let's see it OpenGEO now sees the potential and benefit of making OpenJUMP to a full compliant WFS client supporting all the fine Geoserver WFS features and includes OpenJUMP into the Geoserver installation package (or into OpenGEO Suite) which now has an OpenLayers demo client and new users keep asking why does it not show more than 150 WFS features in the WFS layer preview. OpenJUMP could also a nice client for new WPS processes. Yes, and INSPIRE download services which are WFS with some extras. Unfortunately nobody maintains now the deegree based WFS client and fixing it would probably mean building a new one based on Geotools and for that a sponsor would be needed. -Jukka Rahkonen- Stefan Steiniger wrote: > Hi All, > the architect/designer of JUMP/OpenJUMP stays well integrated with the FOSS4G family: > http://opengeo.org/about/press/20111025-martindavis/ congrats and best of luck for you Martin! stefan -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel-- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] good news and congrats to Martin
Hi, Half seriously, let's see it OpenGEO now sees the potential and benefit of making OpenJUMP to a full compliant WFS client supporting all the fine Geoserver WFS features and includes OpenJUMP into the Geoserver installation package (or into OpenGEO Suite) which now has an OpenLayers demo client and new users keep asking why does it not show more than 150 WFS features in the WFS layer preview. OpenJUMP could also a nice client for new WPS processes. Yes, and INSPIRE download services which are WFS with some extras. Unfortunately nobody maintains now the deegree based WFS client and fixing it would probably mean building a new one based on Geotools and for that a sponsor would be needed. -Jukka Rahkonen- Stefan Steiniger wrote: > Hi All, > the architect/designer of JUMP/OpenJUMP stays well integrated with the FOSS4G family: > http://opengeo.org/about/press/20111025-martindavis/ congrats and best of luck for you Martin! stefan -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] good news and congrats to Martin
Wow, Martin, you're the best advertising OpenGeo could pay for! :) Congrats and all the best for OpenGeo and your future! giovanni 2011/10/26 Martin Davis > Thanks, Stefan. It's great to be more closely involved with the cutting > edge of open source geospatial software. > > Martin > > On 10/26/2011 9:52 AM, Stefan Steiniger wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > the architect/designer of JUMP/OpenJUMP stays well integrated with the > > FOSS4G family: > > > > http://opengeo.org/about/press/20111025-martindavis/ > > > > congrats and best of luck for you Martin! > > > > stefan > > > > > -- > > The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the > > demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. > > Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn > > about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev > > ___ > > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > > > > > - > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4575 - Release Date: 10/26/11 > > > > > > > -- > The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the > demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. > Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn > about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev > ___ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] good news and congrats to Martin
Thanks, Stefan. It's great to be more closely involved with the cutting edge of open source geospatial software. Martin On 10/26/2011 9:52 AM, Stefan Steiniger wrote: > Hi All, > > the architect/designer of JUMP/OpenJUMP stays well integrated with the > FOSS4G family: > > http://opengeo.org/about/press/20111025-martindavis/ > > congrats and best of luck for you Martin! > > stefan > > -- > The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the > demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. > Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn > about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev > ___ > Jump-pilot-devel mailing list > Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4575 - Release Date: 10/26/11 > > -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] ecw licensing is no issue
On 26.10.2011 18:49, Stefan Steiniger wrote:
>
> So I understand we could ship it if we exclude any commercial use -
> which we can not. And that the license itself cannot be combined with
> GPL because the GPL does not restrict use.
not exactly. actually Bernd says that combining OJ and ecw 3.3 libs would
violate the GPL, meaning it would be impossible to combine both for anyone
distributing it.
i just answered to it, questioning his assumption that the each of the licenses
would extend to the other work. please check the mail for details.
a preliminary note on ecw licensing is on
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/jump-pilot/index.php?title=OpenJUMP_Licensing
but i will have to add the "no lending allowed" restriction still
>
> Though.. we should be on the save side if we put a note in the
> readme.text document that folks needs to agree to the ECW license. And
> with that we transfer the adherence of the license terms to the user.
already done. maybe we should point out the limitations for these components as
well in the readme.txt
>
> But, I conclude its better for Intevation to not package the files for
> OJ. Hence, back to my earlier proposal that the dlls will not be part of
> the NB but will be added to official releases.
they are not. you might want to check the core build in the hourly snapshots
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/jump-pilot/index.php?title=Downloading_OpenJUMP#Snapshots
btw. Stephan, how is the nightly build coming?
..ede
>
> my 2 cents
> stefan
>
> Am 26.10.11 02:06, schrieb Rahkonen Jukka:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this information. For me it looks like OpenJUMP does
>> not fulfill the requirements of "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
>> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". Our choice would then be the "ECW JPEG 2000
>> SDK FREE USE LICENSE AGREEMENT" with compression size limitation "The intent
>> of this license is to allow unlimited decompression and limited compression
>> (500MB per image) of
>> ECW JPEG 2000 images within free or commercial applications." Unfortunately
>> this alternative was not analyzed further.
>>
>> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>>
>>
>> Stephan Holl wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello ede, all,
>>>
>>> I tried to read the licence again and again and decided to
>>> ask Bernhard
>>> Reiter (BER), a collegue of mine and Free Software licence
>>> expert about a
>>> statement to the ECW-license-text posted by ede.
>>>
>>> He is not subscribed to this list, so I post his writing here on his
>>> behave:
>>>
>>> BER> Analysis of "ecw license.txt",
>>> BER>"EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING
>>> BER> ECW JPEG 2000 SDK LICENSE AGREEMENTS"
>>> BER>
>>> BER> The first paragraph mentions four licensing options. One is for
>>> BER> applications licensed "under a GNU General Public style license
>>> BER> ("GPL")". The second has limitations and the third one is for
>>> BER> "commercial applications". Given the explicit mention of GNU GPL
>>> BER> style licenses, it can be assumed that "commercial applications"
>>> BER> more precisely means "proprietary applications".
>>> BER> The fourth option is to ask for a license for the use in
>>> BER> applications "that are outside of the terms of these agreements,
>>> BER> including server-side applications". So it is not entirely clear
>>> BER> that server-side applications are meant to be included in the
>>> BER> first three licensing options.
>>> BER>
>>> BER> Aiming at a Free Software application our best candidate seems to
>>> BER> be the first option, which is called the "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
>>> BER> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". Let us examine it in more detail:
>>> BER>
>>> BER> The first section states the intent of the license "to establish
>>> BER> freedom to share and change the software regulated by this
>>> BER> license under the open source model".
>>> BER> This is a good sign.
>>> BER>
>>> BER> However the use of the software is further restricted to "to
>>> BER> develop or be distributed with products that are licensed under a
>>> BER> license similar to a General Public License ("GPL") and at no
>>> BER> charge to the public." As it is possible to place software under
>>> BER> the GNU GPL v2 or v3 for which access to is limited or charged
>>> BER> for, use of this software would already be an additional
>>> BER> restriction towards the GNU GPL v2+ license. And thus be
>>> BER> forbidden by the GNU GPL licenses itself. As GNU GPL style
>>> BER> licences are allowed only, maybe a license GNU GPL with a special
>>> BER> exception for the libary might use the library so far. Let us
>>> BER> look further.
>>> BER>
>>> BER> The license of the library itself seems to be unfree, because of
>>> BER> the no-charge restriction, the assumed server-only restriction
>>> BER> and the restriction to not change the format. There used to be a
>>> BER> clear non-server restriction in 1)b)iv) in an elder version of
>>> BER> the license:
>>> BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00
Re: [JPP-Devel] ecw licensing is no issue
Hi Bernhard, thanks for your contribution. Please find my notes below.
On 26.10.2011 09:32, Stephan Holl wrote:
> He is not subscribed to this list, so I post his writing here on his
> behave:
>
> BER> Analysis of "ecw license.txt",
> BER> "EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING
> BER>ECW JPEG 2000 SDK LICENSE AGREEMENTS"
> BER>
> BER> The first paragraph mentions four licensing options. One is for
> BER> applications licensed "under a GNU General Public style license
> BER> ("GPL")". The second has limitations and the third one is for
> BER> "commercial applications". Given the explicit mention of GNU GPL
> BER> style licenses, it can be assumed that "commercial applications"
> BER> more precisely means "proprietary applications".
> BER> The fourth option is to ask for a license for the use in
> BER> applications "that are outside of the terms of these agreements,
> BER> including server-side applications". So it is not entirely clear
> BER> that server-side applications are meant to be included in the
> BER> first three licensing options.
It becomes clear when reading "FREE USE" & "COMMERCIAL USE" which explicitely
exclude server application usage. But you are right.
"outside of the terms of these agreements, including server-side applications"
can be read to apply as well to the "PUBLIC USE" license. To be legally sure
one would have assume that it does.
> BER>
> BER> Aiming at a Free Software application our best candidate seems to
> BER> be the first option, which is called the "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
> BER> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT".
agreed
>Let us examine it in more detail:
> BER>
> BER> The first section states the intent of the license "to establish
> BER> freedom to share and change the software regulated by this
> BER> license under the open source model".
> BER> This is a good sign.
and it simply states open source model, not free software specifically.
> BER>
> BER> However the use of the software is further restricted to "to
> BER> develop or be distributed with products that are licensed under a
> BER> license similar to a General Public License ("GPL") and at no
> BER> charge to the public." As it is possible to place software under
> BER> the GNU GPL v2 or v3 for which access to is limited or charged
> BER> for, use of this software would already be an additional
> BER> restriction towards the GNU GPL v2+ license.
That would be true if the license would obstruct itself on the gpl parts it is
shipped with. I'd argue that any user is free to sell a OJ distro that
_contained_ ecw libraries after removing them. In other words, we of the OJ
team are taking the offered opportunity to distribute without charge AND the
user can do the same or remove the obstructing parts. No GPL violation there.
>And thus be
> BER> forbidden by the GNU GPL licenses itself.
>As GNU GPL style
> BER> licences are allowed only, maybe a license GNU GPL with a special
> BER> exception for the libary might use the library so far. Let us
> BER> look further.
Disagreed. The license referring to the "Software (Product)" is limited to the
"ERM ECW JPEG 2000 SDK software product" which in my reading is limited to ecw
libraries and does _not_ include any of the other parts (namely oj-core etc.).
> BER>
> BER> The license of the library itself seems to be unfree, because of
> BER> the no-charge restriction, the assumed server-only restriction
> BER> and the restriction to not change the format.
Right, it is not free. The source is merely opened and modifiable under certain
restrictions. But actually this is completely irrelevant as gpl'd software is
allowed to use software of _any_ license as a plugin provided the separation of
the code is strict e.g. the proprietary plugin is not allowed not extend a
basic gpl'd plugin class.
>There used to be a
> BER> clear non-server restriction in 1)b)iv) in an elder version of
> BER> the license:
> BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00051.html which
> BER> got removed in the current one under examination.
maybe not as clear anymore for the "PUBLIC USE", but as stated above pretty
clear for "FREE USE" & "COMMERCIAL USE" licenses
> BER>
> BER> The no-charge restriction will also result in major
> BER> GNU-Distribution being unable to ship the ecw libaries, e.g.
> BER> Debian has discussed a few times and also always concluded that
> BER> the license is non-free. E.g.
> BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00061.html has
> BER> three unfree reasons.
i am really lucky that we are no linux distributor at all. just a voluntary
software project that distributes for free. what people do with our 'products'
is up to them. we provide the software parts and their licenses and if the
receivers choose to disobey any license we can't do anything about it.
actually we only supply ecw libraries with a n extended distribution containing
selected extensions.
> BER>
> BER> And then there are patents: The
> BER> http://www.gnu.org/l
[JPP-Devel] good news and congrats to Martin
Hi All, the architect/designer of JUMP/OpenJUMP stays well integrated with the FOSS4G family: http://opengeo.org/about/press/20111025-martindavis/ congrats and best of luck for you Martin! stefan -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] ecw licensing is no issue
Hey,
Thanks a lot Stephan for asking!
So I understand we could ship it if we exclude any commercial use -
which we can not. And that the license itself cannot be combined with
GPL because the GPL does not restrict use.
Though.. we should be on the save side if we put a note in the
readme.text document that folks needs to agree to the ECW license. And
with that we transfer the adherence of the license terms to the user.
But, I conclude its better for Intevation to not package the files for
OJ. Hence, back to my earlier proposal that the dlls will not be part of
the NB but will be added to official releases.
my 2 cents
stefan
Am 26.10.11 02:06, schrieb Rahkonen Jukka:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for sharing this information. For me it looks like OpenJUMP does
> not fulfill the requirements of "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". Our choice would then be the "ECW JPEG 2000
> SDK FREE USE LICENSE AGREEMENT" with compression size limitation "The intent
> of this license is to allow unlimited decompression and limited compression
> (500MB per image) of
> ECW JPEG 2000 images within free or commercial applications." Unfortunately
> this alternative was not analyzed further.
>
> -Jukka Rahkonen-
>
>
> Stephan Holl wrote:
>
>
>> Hello ede, all,
>>
>> I tried to read the licence again and again and decided to
>> ask Bernhard
>> Reiter (BER), a collegue of mine and Free Software licence
>> expert about a
>> statement to the ECW-license-text posted by ede.
>>
>> He is not subscribed to this list, so I post his writing here on his
>> behave:
>>
>> BER> Analysis of "ecw license.txt",
>> BER>"EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING
>> BER> ECW JPEG 2000 SDK LICENSE AGREEMENTS"
>> BER>
>> BER> The first paragraph mentions four licensing options. One is for
>> BER> applications licensed "under a GNU General Public style license
>> BER> ("GPL")". The second has limitations and the third one is for
>> BER> "commercial applications". Given the explicit mention of GNU GPL
>> BER> style licenses, it can be assumed that "commercial applications"
>> BER> more precisely means "proprietary applications".
>> BER> The fourth option is to ask for a license for the use in
>> BER> applications "that are outside of the terms of these agreements,
>> BER> including server-side applications". So it is not entirely clear
>> BER> that server-side applications are meant to be included in the
>> BER> first three licensing options.
>> BER>
>> BER> Aiming at a Free Software application our best candidate seems to
>> BER> be the first option, which is called the "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
>> BER> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". Let us examine it in more detail:
>> BER>
>> BER> The first section states the intent of the license "to establish
>> BER> freedom to share and change the software regulated by this
>> BER> license under the open source model".
>> BER> This is a good sign.
>> BER>
>> BER> However the use of the software is further restricted to "to
>> BER> develop or be distributed with products that are licensed under a
>> BER> license similar to a General Public License ("GPL") and at no
>> BER> charge to the public." As it is possible to place software under
>> BER> the GNU GPL v2 or v3 for which access to is limited or charged
>> BER> for, use of this software would already be an additional
>> BER> restriction towards the GNU GPL v2+ license. And thus be
>> BER> forbidden by the GNU GPL licenses itself. As GNU GPL style
>> BER> licences are allowed only, maybe a license GNU GPL with a special
>> BER> exception for the libary might use the library so far. Let us
>> BER> look further.
>> BER>
>> BER> The license of the library itself seems to be unfree, because of
>> BER> the no-charge restriction, the assumed server-only restriction
>> BER> and the restriction to not change the format. There used to be a
>> BER> clear non-server restriction in 1)b)iv) in an elder version of
>> BER> the license:
>> BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00051.html which
>> BER> got removed in the current one under examination.
>> BER>
>> BER> The no-charge restriction will also result in major
>> BER> GNU-Distribution being unable to ship the ecw libaries, e.g.
>> BER> Debian has discussed a few times and also always concluded that
>> BER> the license is non-free. E.g.
>> BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00061.html has
>> BER> three unfree reasons.
>> BER>
>> BER> And then there are patents: The
>> BER> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html states in 3. 7) that the
>> BER> patents must allow a royality free use for everybody that
>> BER> receives the source code under this license. A modifed source
>> BER> code that changes the ecw format would be available under the
>> BER> license, but probably not allowed by the patent grand of the ecw
>> BER> lib. Therefore a "GPL v2+exception" license would not work, you
>> BER> could not distribute the software. Section
Re: [JPP-Devel] OpenJUMP Presentation at Annual Meeting of California OSGeo
Hi Landon, thanks for this document. Giuseppe Da: Sunburned Surveyor A: OpenJump develop and use Cc: Landon Blake Inviato: Martedì 25 Ottobre 2011 17:51 Oggetto: [JPP-Devel] OpenJUMP Presentation at Annual Meeting of California OSGeo I gave a short talk on OpenJUMP at the Annual Meeting of the California OSGeo Chapter. The first few minutes of the talk wasn't recorded, but the tail end is here: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/18037283 Landon -- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev ___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel-- The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev___ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
Re: [JPP-Devel] ecw licensing is no issue
Hi,
Thank you for sharing this information. For me it looks like OpenJUMP does not
fulfill the requirements of "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". Our choice would then be the "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
FREE USE LICENSE AGREEMENT" with compression size limitation "The intent of
this license is to allow unlimited decompression and limited compression (500MB
per image) of
ECW JPEG 2000 images within free or commercial applications." Unfortunately
this alternative was not analyzed further.
-Jukka Rahkonen-
Stephan Holl wrote:
> Hello ede, all,
>
> I tried to read the licence again and again and decided to
> ask Bernhard
> Reiter (BER), a collegue of mine and Free Software licence
> expert about a
> statement to the ECW-license-text posted by ede.
>
> He is not subscribed to this list, so I post his writing here on his
> behave:
>
> BER> Analysis of "ecw license.txt",
> BER> "EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING
> BER>ECW JPEG 2000 SDK LICENSE AGREEMENTS"
> BER>
> BER> The first paragraph mentions four licensing options. One is for
> BER> applications licensed "under a GNU General Public style license
> BER> ("GPL")". The second has limitations and the third one is for
> BER> "commercial applications". Given the explicit mention of GNU GPL
> BER> style licenses, it can be assumed that "commercial applications"
> BER> more precisely means "proprietary applications".
> BER> The fourth option is to ask for a license for the use in
> BER> applications "that are outside of the terms of these agreements,
> BER> including server-side applications". So it is not entirely clear
> BER> that server-side applications are meant to be included in the
> BER> first three licensing options.
> BER>
> BER> Aiming at a Free Software application our best candidate seems to
> BER> be the first option, which is called the "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
> BER> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". Let us examine it in more detail:
> BER>
> BER> The first section states the intent of the license "to establish
> BER> freedom to share and change the software regulated by this
> BER> license under the open source model".
> BER> This is a good sign.
> BER>
> BER> However the use of the software is further restricted to "to
> BER> develop or be distributed with products that are licensed under a
> BER> license similar to a General Public License ("GPL") and at no
> BER> charge to the public." As it is possible to place software under
> BER> the GNU GPL v2 or v3 for which access to is limited or charged
> BER> for, use of this software would already be an additional
> BER> restriction towards the GNU GPL v2+ license. And thus be
> BER> forbidden by the GNU GPL licenses itself. As GNU GPL style
> BER> licences are allowed only, maybe a license GNU GPL with a special
> BER> exception for the libary might use the library so far. Let us
> BER> look further.
> BER>
> BER> The license of the library itself seems to be unfree, because of
> BER> the no-charge restriction, the assumed server-only restriction
> BER> and the restriction to not change the format. There used to be a
> BER> clear non-server restriction in 1)b)iv) in an elder version of
> BER> the license:
> BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00051.html which
> BER> got removed in the current one under examination.
> BER>
> BER> The no-charge restriction will also result in major
> BER> GNU-Distribution being unable to ship the ecw libaries, e.g.
> BER> Debian has discussed a few times and also always concluded that
> BER> the license is non-free. E.g.
> BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00061.html has
> BER> three unfree reasons.
> BER>
> BER> And then there are patents: The
> BER> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html states in 3. 7) that the
> BER> patents must allow a royality free use for everybody that
> BER> receives the source code under this license. A modifed source
> BER> code that changes the ecw format would be available under the
> BER> license, but probably not allowed by the patent grand of the ecw
> BER> lib. Therefore a "GPL v2+exception" license would not work, you
> BER> could not distribute the software. Section 3. 6) forbits adding
> BER> of further restrictions, so the combined GNU GPL v2 + exc lib is
> BER> undistributable. The situation is similiar with the GNU GPLv3.
> BER>
> BER> As it is unclear what under a 'GNU General Public style license
> BER> ("GPL")' means, there might be licenses that might allow the
> BER> derived work of ecw libraries and itself to be developed and
> BER> distributed. The obvious choices GNU GPLv2 and v3 do not allow
> BER> it, though.
> BER>
> BER> On the freegis lists, there have been discussion about this a few
> BER> times, e.g.
> BER>
> http://freegis.org/pipermail/freegis-list/2006-September/thread.html
> BER> clearly showing that the license is problematic.
>
> Best
>
> Stephan
>
>
> edgar.sol...@web.de, [20111007 - 11:21:10]
>
> > First and foremost, there is _no_
Re: [JPP-Devel] ecw licensing is no issue
Hello ede, all,
I tried to read the licence again and again and decided to ask Bernhard
Reiter (BER), a collegue of mine and Free Software licence expert about a
statement to the ECW-license-text posted by ede.
He is not subscribed to this list, so I post his writing here on his
behave:
BER> Analysis of "ecw license.txt",
BER> "EARTH RESOURCE MAPPING
BER>ECW JPEG 2000 SDK LICENSE AGREEMENTS"
BER>
BER> The first paragraph mentions four licensing options. One is for
BER> applications licensed "under a GNU General Public style license
BER> ("GPL")". The second has limitations and the third one is for
BER> "commercial applications". Given the explicit mention of GNU GPL
BER> style licenses, it can be assumed that "commercial applications"
BER> more precisely means "proprietary applications".
BER> The fourth option is to ask for a license for the use in
BER> applications "that are outside of the terms of these agreements,
BER> including server-side applications". So it is not entirely clear
BER> that server-side applications are meant to be included in the
BER> first three licensing options.
BER>
BER> Aiming at a Free Software application our best candidate seems to
BER> be the first option, which is called the "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
BER> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". Let us examine it in more detail:
BER>
BER> The first section states the intent of the license "to establish
BER> freedom to share and change the software regulated by this
BER> license under the open source model".
BER> This is a good sign.
BER>
BER> However the use of the software is further restricted to "to
BER> develop or be distributed with products that are licensed under a
BER> license similar to a General Public License ("GPL") and at no
BER> charge to the public." As it is possible to place software under
BER> the GNU GPL v2 or v3 for which access to is limited or charged
BER> for, use of this software would already be an additional
BER> restriction towards the GNU GPL v2+ license. And thus be
BER> forbidden by the GNU GPL licenses itself. As GNU GPL style
BER> licences are allowed only, maybe a license GNU GPL with a special
BER> exception for the libary might use the library so far. Let us
BER> look further.
BER>
BER> The license of the library itself seems to be unfree, because of
BER> the no-charge restriction, the assumed server-only restriction
BER> and the restriction to not change the format. There used to be a
BER> clear non-server restriction in 1)b)iv) in an elder version of
BER> the license:
BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00051.html which
BER> got removed in the current one under examination.
BER>
BER> The no-charge restriction will also result in major
BER> GNU-Distribution being unable to ship the ecw libaries, e.g.
BER> Debian has discussed a few times and also always concluded that
BER> the license is non-free. E.g.
BER> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00061.html has
BER> three unfree reasons.
BER>
BER> And then there are patents: The
BER> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html states in 3. 7) that the
BER> patents must allow a royality free use for everybody that
BER> receives the source code under this license. A modifed source
BER> code that changes the ecw format would be available under the
BER> license, but probably not allowed by the patent grand of the ecw
BER> lib. Therefore a "GPL v2+exception" license would not work, you
BER> could not distribute the software. Section 3. 6) forbits adding
BER> of further restrictions, so the combined GNU GPL v2 + exc lib is
BER> undistributable. The situation is similiar with the GNU GPLv3.
BER>
BER> As it is unclear what under a 'GNU General Public style license
BER> ("GPL")' means, there might be licenses that might allow the
BER> derived work of ecw libraries and itself to be developed and
BER> distributed. The obvious choices GNU GPLv2 and v3 do not allow
BER> it, though.
BER>
BER> On the freegis lists, there have been discussion about this a few
BER> times, e.g.
BER> http://freegis.org/pipermail/freegis-list/2006-September/thread.html
BER> clearly showing that the license is problematic.
Best
Stephan
edgar.sol...@web.de, [20111007 - 11:21:10]
> First and foremost, there is _no_ license issue here. We have two
> licenses, to which terms we have to agree and act.
>
> ECW SDK license (note: version 3.3):
> For everyone unsure i attached the license of the ecw code used to
> this email. Our use case is the first license in there: -->
> Use of the ECW JPEG 2000 SDK with Unlimited Decompressing and
> Unlimited Compression for applications licensed under a GNU General
> Public style license ("GPL") is governed by the "ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
> PUBLIC USE LICENSE AGREEMENT". <-- The only drawback would be some
> commercial restriction "selling,renting not allowed", but this
> shouldn't be our concern, because we do _nothing_ of that sort and
> anyone who wants to should make sure to oblige _all_ licenses.
>
> GPL2:
