Hello everyone, I have a question about GEOSUnion(). I give value to g1 and g2 like below: GEOSGeom g1 = "POLYGON ((1 3, 1 3, 1 6, 1 6, 1 3))" and GEOSGeom g2 = "POLYGON ((1 3, 1 3, 1 6, 1 6, 1 3))" , but if I make union operation like GEOSGeom g3 = GEOSUnion(g1, g2), it give me result like "GEOMETRYCOLLECTION EMPTY". Does anyone can tell me why?
2009/4/10 <[email protected]> > Send geos-devel mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of geos-devel digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Boost License compatibility (Mateusz Loskot) > 2. Re: Boost License compatibility (Paul Ramsey) > 3. Re: Boost License compatibility (Mateusz Loskot) > 4. Re: Boost License compatibility (Greg Troxel) > 5. Re: Boost License compatibility (Mateusz Loskot) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:20:56 +0100 > From: Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] Boost License compatibility > To: GEOS Development List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Paul Ramsey wrote: > > Since you're talking about taking a small snippet of LGPL and putting > > it into a larger chunk of Boost, probably you will get no definitive > > answer, since it hinges on whether your new combined result is a > > "derived work" (in which case it's LGPL) or not (in which case it can > > be Boost). The "safe" black-and-white answer is that combining > > anything from a *GPL project with another compatibly-licensed project > > creates a *GPL resultant. > > All this makes sense and seems to be best approach. Thanks! > > Slightly changing my original question. > Let's assume no code is copied. > Is it safe to "translate" or let's say rewrite some parts of > implementation of algorithms available in GEOS, using different > types, different idioms, different C++ constructions, etc. > and license such work under the terms of Boost License? > > Best regards, > > p.s. I understand that the best answer is > probably "Ask your lawyer!", so sorry for bothering > if it's OT here. > > -- > Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:31:55 -0700 > From: Paul Ramsey <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] Boost License compatibility > To: GEOS Development List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Definitely an "ask your lawyer". Our feeling when porting JTS to C++ > was that the port was still a "derived work" and should retain the > LGPL license of the original work. However, that was merely a feeling, > I have no idea where the grey areas lie in things like algorithm > porting. > > P. > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul Ramsey wrote: > >> Since you're talking about taking a small snippet of LGPL and putting > >> it into a larger chunk of Boost, probably you will get no definitive > >> answer, since it hinges on whether your new combined result is a > >> "derived work" (in which case it's LGPL) or not (in which case it can > >> be Boost). The "safe" black-and-white answer is that combining > >> anything from a *GPL project with another compatibly-licensed project > >> creates a *GPL resultant. > > > > All this makes sense and seems to be best approach. Thanks! > > > > Slightly changing my original question. > > Let's assume no code is copied. > > Is it safe to "translate" or let's say rewrite some parts of > > implementation of algorithms available in GEOS, using different > > types, different idioms, different C++ constructions, etc. > > and license such work under the terms of Boost License? > > > > Best regards, > > > > p.s. I understand that the best answer is > > probably "Ask your lawyer!", so sorry for bothering > > if it's OT here. > > > > -- > > Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > > Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org > > _______________________________________________ > > geos-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:41:16 +0100 > From: Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] Boost License compatibility > To: GEOS Development List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Paul Ramsey wrote: > > Definitely an "ask your lawyer". Our feeling when porting JTS to C++ > > was that the port was still a "derived work" and should retain the > > LGPL license of the original work. However, that was merely a feeling, > > I have no idea where the grey areas lie in things like algorithm > > porting. > > Right, I have similar feeling. > > Thanks for help! > > Best regards, > -- > Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:02:48 -0400 > From: Greg Troxel <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] Boost License compatibility > To: GEOS Development List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> writes: > > > The question is like this: > > > > Can I copy lines 10-30 from GEOS source file a.cpp to project X which > > is licensed under the terms of Boost License? > > If those lines are deemed to be non-trivial - and the rule of them is > that 10 or more lines are definitely non-trivial - then no, because you > have a derived work and can't distribute the LGPL code under the Boost > License. If you read one line and write something to do a similar > algorithm but differently, almost certainly it's not a derived work and > the licnense of the inspirational work doesn't matter. The middle > ground is hard and standard advice is not to skate near the edge of thin > ice. > > > There is an existing code, project X licensed under Boost License. > > If I copy some work based on LGPL and include it in the X, > > can I still distribute X under the terms of Boost License? > > Definitely not. > > >> It's pretty clear the boost people would reject including LPGL code > >> in boost, if that's what you are asking. > > > > And this is something that is not clear or better, not obvious to me. > > >From reading their analysis of licenses, it seems clear to me that Boost > wants to allow proprietary use of boost. This is the same licensing > goal as the BSDs, and it's different from the FSF goal. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 193 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geos-devel/attachments/20090408/da027928/attachment-0001.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:43:41 +0100 > From: Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] Boost License compatibility > To: GEOS Development List <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Greg Troxel wrote: > > Mateusz Loskot <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> The question is like this: > >> > >> Can I copy lines 10-30 from GEOS source file a.cpp to project X which > >> is licensed under the terms of Boost License? > > > > If those lines are deemed to be non-trivial - and the rule of them is > > that 10 or more lines are definitely non-trivial - then no, because you > > have a derived work and can't distribute the LGPL code under the Boost > > License. If you read one line and write something to do a similar > > algorithm but differently, almost certainly it's not a derived work and > > the licnense of the inspirational work doesn't matter. The middle > > ground is hard and standard advice is not to skate near the edge of thin > > ice. > > Yes, this is best recommendation. > > >>> It's pretty clear the boost people would reject including LPGL code > >>> in boost, if that's what you are asking. > >> And this is something that is not clear or better, not obvious to me. > > > > From reading their analysis of licenses, it seems clear to me that Boost > > wants to allow proprietary use of boost. This is the same licensing > > goal as the BSDs, and it's different from the FSF goal. > > Right, good point. > > Thanks to all for help in understanding the issue! > > Best regards, > -- > Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > > End of geos-devel Digest, Vol 78, Issue 7 > ***************************************** >
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
