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/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.
Right and irrelevant as the GPL does not extend to software that is used as a
plugin.
>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.
GPL + exception is impossible, because as in lot's of other projects we
couldn't find every and all contributors to change the license by now.
but once again: we do not have to. the GPL2 states
"The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on
the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright
law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either
verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
(Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term
"modification".) "
the ecw library or the java binding code is in no way based on any oj code.
there is a clear separation here, which keeps the GPL2 from applying.
> 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.
would be true if the GPL would apply to the ecw code. it simply does not. where
in the GPL2 is written that using a proprietary API is forbidden?
> 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.
Jan-Oliver Wagner (of your company?) assumes there that (L)GPL applies to a
used proprietary library. I really do not understand how people come to this
conclusion. Please see for example
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Communicating_and_bundling_with_non-GPL_programs
or above that (Point of view: linking is irrelevant)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Communicating_and_bundling_with_non-GPL_programs
The GPL2 merely talks about "work based on" and "derivative work". How can an
ecw library written to be of use in a multitude of applications be seen as a
derivative work of openjump at all? Where is the (re)used gpl'd code/structure?
Eventually all sources i found said that courts would have to rule what is
derived and what not. Even FSF, although the makers of GPL, can only give a
guideline but no definitive legal council.
Btw. Tom Lynch from Ermapper writes in the same thread what might be what
ermapper understands a gpl style license is, see
http://freegis.org/pipermail/freegis-list/2006-September/002967.html
Conclusion:
We have two pieces of software, from which one the gpl'd OpenJUMP uses the
proprietary ECW libraries to access data. Both of them together do _not_ form
_one_ work but an aggregation of software. This is because
- OpenJUMP is totally capable to work without the proprietary component
- the proprietary component is not based on OpenJUMP
For the aggregation is to be said. Each components license applies. Which means
OpenJUMP PLUS (including ecw code) can perfectly well be sold, rented or
whatever if the proprietary component is removed before that.
kind regards ede
PS: although written below, i state now that the plugin definition as i wrote
below does not apply in this case. plugins do reuse interface code of their
parent application and share information structures, which are probably defined
by the parent as well. all this is not the case here.
>
> 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:
>> Secondly there is the GPLv2, the oj license. Everybody can get a copy
>> themselves. in a nutshell it protects every code based on gpl code by
>> extending gpl to it. This actually does not prevent you to use
>> libraries or other software with it. It "merely" insists on proper
>> interfaces, which make sure that these are independent software
>> parts. This can be problematic, because a lot of interfacing in some
>> programming languages is done by definitions, which are done in
>> source code themselves. So actually if a library would include this
>> code, it would need to be gpl'd again. But this is not the case here.
>> There is a clean separation of the source code and oj is merely using
>> ecw routines, not the other way around. This is covered by the
>> "plugin" definition.
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
>>
>> in conclusion, no problem here.
>>
>> ..ede
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
