Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
Whence licence exceptions e.g. in ExtJS (http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php) Assuming that you consider them valid. Red Hat Legal is firm that this exception clause isn't valid. -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471509#c2 Thanx for the precision Chris. ExtJS is a whole different ball of wax than the OP was talking about; it's best not to treat too much in that project's licensing as doctrine, since it's different from any other open sourced project I've ever dealt with, and unusual in a number of ways. Right. Thanx. Yves ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On 5-May-09, at 6:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic wrote: I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. All OSGeo applications are open source licensed and can be built on top of on most operating systems. On http://osgeo.org there is a list of projects that are under the OSGeo umbrella, some are specifically libraries for processing or data conversion, whereas others are application frameworks or desktop/web applications you can customise. Do you have something specific you are looking to create? Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
Nenad, The OSGeo projects use a variety of licenses. You'll see LGPL, MPL, GPL, MIT, and others. If you are developing commercial tools, you'll need to avoid GPL (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Also take into consideration development platform/language. My group (MapWindow project) has a number of people using our GIS SDK for commercial applications in the .NET platform. MapWindow is licensed under MPL 1.1 which supports commercial usage. Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic nenad.milasino...@zesium.com wrote: Hello, I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. Best regards. -- Nenad Milasinovic Software Development and Testing --- ZESIUM mobile d.o.o. Valentina Vodnika 8/9 21000 Novi Sad Serbia Tel: +381 (0)21 472 15 48 Fax: +381 (0)21 472 15 49 Mob: +381 (0)61 231 41 20 E-mail: nenad.milasino...@zesium.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
IANAL either, but I do read wikipedia. So by way of clarification... Everything I've read makes a clear distinction between GPL and LGPL such that GPL code can not be embedded in or linked to a closed source application. Period. Whereas L-GPL licensed code can be linked to a closed source application. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License So if the individual wants to link to GPL licensed code/libraries and is willing to make his code GPL then fine. He can still run a commercial business based on this code, as many people do. But if he wants to keep his code under some closed-source license then he can not link to or embed any GPL licensed code or library. - Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Daniel Ames amesd...@isu.edu wrote: Nenad, The OSGeo projects use a variety of licenses. You'll see LGPL, MPL, GPL, MIT, and others. If you are developing commercial tools, you'll need to avoid GPL (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Disclaimer: IANAL. Get legal advice from your lawyer before embarking on your million dollar enterprise. I'll correct you, because, as stated above, you are misrepresenting at best, and wrong at worst. ;-) GPL does not prevent you from making money. GPL only requires that if you modify the code that is under GPL, then you must redistribute the modified code under GPL. Granted this may not be easy to figure out in real world scenarios, but consider the following -- Let's say ShapeLib is published under GPL (I don't know whether or not it is; this is only for illustration purpose). Let's say, MapServer utilizes ShapeLib, but doesn't modify ShapeLib, but uses ShapeLib as is. Let's say, MapServer's creator decides to make millions off of MapServer, Inc. He is under no obligation to release the source code of MapServer, but he is obligated to release the source code of ShapeLib, which is no big deal, because the source code of ShapeLib is already available to anyone. On the other hand, let's say, ShapeLib is modified to perform better, or differently, for MapServer. Now, there is an obligation to release the source code to the modified version of ShapeLib no matter what the value of that value-added might be. That is what the GPL obligates. MapServer itself is still governed by whatever license that its creator decides to apply. Also take into consideration development platform/language. My group (MapWindow project) has a number of people using our GIS SDK for commercial applications in the .NET platform. MapWindow is licensed under MPL 1.1 which supports commercial usage. Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic nenad.milasino...@zesium.com wrote: Hello, I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. Best regards. -- Nenad Milasinovic Software Development and Testing --- ZESIUM mobile d.o.o. Valentina Vodnika 8/9 21000 Novi Sad Serbia Tel: +381 (0)21 472 15 48 Fax: +381 (0)21 472 15 49 Mob: +381 (0)61 231 41 20 E-mail: nenad.milasino...@zesium.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org/ Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org/ Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/ Science Commons Fellow, Geospatial Data http://sciencecommons.org Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ --- collaborate, communicate, compete === Sent from Madison, WI, United States ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:24:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Daniel Ames amesd...@isu.edu wrote: Nenad, The OSGeo projects use a variety of licenses. You'll see LGPL, MPL, GPL, MIT, and others. If you are developing commercial tools, you'll need to avoid GPL (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Disclaimer: IANAL. Get legal advice from your lawyer before embarking on your million dollar enterprise. I'll correct you, because, as stated above, you are misrepresenting at best, and wrong at worst. ;-) GPL does not prevent you from making money. GPL only requires that if you modify the code that is under GPL, then you must redistribute the modified code under GPL. Granted this may not be easy to figure out in real world scenarios, but consider the following -- Let's say ShapeLib is published under GPL (I don't know whether or not it is; this is only for illustration purpose). Let's say, MapServer utilizes ShapeLib, but doesn't modify ShapeLib, but uses ShapeLib as is. Let's say, MapServer's creator decides to make millions off of MapServer, Inc. He is under no obligation to release the source code of MapServer, but he is obligated to release the source code of ShapeLib, which is no big deal, because the source code of ShapeLib is already available to anyone. On the other hand, let's say, ShapeLib is modified to perform better, or differently, for MapServer. Now, there is an obligation to release the source code to the modified version of ShapeLib no matter what the value of that value-added might be. That is what the GPL obligates. MapServer itself is still governed by whatever license that its creator decides to apply. Er, I think you're confusing the GPL and the LGPL. What you have just described is the situation with the LGPL, but not with GPL. Because MapServer integrates ShapeLib (I'm assuming from your description above that it does) then MapServer is also required to be released under the GPL, because shapelib is linked to MapServer. MapServer -- as it is linking ShapeLib -- is *also* required to be released under the terms of the GPL, even if the MapServer code itself was not. (For the record, no part of shapelib or MapServer is released under the GPL, to the best of my knowledge, so this is simply a straw man, not a practical discussion.) Any time your code includes GPL code, all of the code that incorporates it must also be treated under the GPL. This does *not* prevent you from making money. It simply means you also have to give source code to the people you give object code to, and that they are then able to do the same to others, if they choose to do so. Red Hat makes a large amount of money by doing exactly this, for example -- though they don't make money off giving you the software, and it seems unlikely that much software can be 'sold' when it's under the GPL. (It's not impossible, though -- especially when things like 'compiling on Windows' come in to play.) Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:33:40AM -0600, Daniel Ames wrote: IANAL either, but I do read wikipedia. So by way of clarification... Everything I've read makes a clear distinction between GPL and LGPL such that GPL code can not be embedded in or linked to a closed source application. Period. Whereas L-GPL licensed code can be linked to a closed source application. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License So if the individual wants to link to GPL licensed code/libraries and is willing to make his code GPL then fine. He can still run a commercial business based on this code, as many people do. But if he wants to keep his code under some closed-source license then he can not link to or embed any GPL licensed code or library. You beat me to it :) this is exactly what I tried to say in my previous post. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Daniel Ames amesd...@isu.edu wrote: IANAL either, but I do read wikipedia. So by way of clarification... Everything I've read makes a clear distinction between GPL and LGPL such that GPL code can not be embedded in or linked to a closed source application. Period. Whereas L-GPL licensed code can be linked to a closed source application. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License So if the individual wants to link to GPL licensed code/libraries and is willing to make his code GPL then fine. He can still run a commercial business based on this code, as many people do. But if he wants to keep his code under some closed-source license then he can not link to or embed any GPL licensed code or library. Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out between GPL and LGPL makes sense. All that said, please note that GPL does not prevent anyone from commercializing any technology, and that was the thrust of the original question, if I recall correctly, although, the OP specifically asked for only LGPL technology, so GPL was out anyway. In that sense, LGPL is compatible with GPL, but GPL is not compatible with LGPL. In any case, all the more reason to consult an actual lawyer before setting out to do a commercial venture, or, be prepared to make money while openly sharing your code. Nothing to hide is always the better policy, or, at least the more headache-free policy. - Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Daniel Ames amesd...@isu.edu wrote: Nenad, The OSGeo projects use a variety of licenses. You'll see LGPL, MPL, GPL, MIT, and others. If you are developing commercial tools, you'll need to avoid GPL (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Disclaimer: IANAL. Get legal advice from your lawyer before embarking on your million dollar enterprise. I'll correct you, because, as stated above, you are misrepresenting at best, and wrong at worst. ;-) GPL does not prevent you from making money. GPL only requires that if you modify the code that is under GPL, then you must redistribute the modified code under GPL. Granted this may not be easy to figure out in real world scenarios, but consider the following -- Let's say ShapeLib is published under GPL (I don't know whether or not it is; this is only for illustration purpose). Let's say, MapServer utilizes ShapeLib, but doesn't modify ShapeLib, but uses ShapeLib as is. Let's say, MapServer's creator decides to make millions off of MapServer, Inc. He is under no obligation to release the source code of MapServer, but he is obligated to release the source code of ShapeLib, which is no big deal, because the source code of ShapeLib is already available to anyone. On the other hand, let's say, ShapeLib is modified to perform better, or differently, for MapServer. Now, there is an obligation to release the source code to the modified version of ShapeLib no matter what the value of that value-added might be. That is what the GPL obligates. MapServer itself is still governed by whatever license that its creator decides to apply. Also take into consideration development platform/language. My group (MapWindow project) has a number of people using our GIS SDK for commercial applications in the .NET platform. MapWindow is licensed under MPL 1.1 which supports commercial usage. Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic nenad.milasino...@zesium.com wrote: Hello, I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. Best regards. -- Nenad Milasinovic Software Development and Testing --- ZESIUM mobile d.o.o. Valentina Vodnika 8/9 21000 Novi Sad Serbia Tel: +381 (0)21 472 15 48 Fax: +381 (0)21 472 15 49 Mob: +381 (0)61 231 41 20 E-mail: nenad.milasino...@zesium.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org/ Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org/ Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/ Science Commons Fellow, Geospatial
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
Hi, Some more precision. Let's say ShapeLib is published under GPL (I don't know whether or not it is; this is only for illustration purpose). Let's say, MapServer utilizes ShapeLib, but doesn't modify ShapeLib, but uses ShapeLib as is. Let's say, MapServer's creator decides to make millions off of MapServer, Inc. He is under no obligation to release the source code of MapServer, but he is obligated to release the source code of ShapeLib, which is no big deal, because the source code of ShapeLib is already available to anyone. On the other hand, let's say, ShapeLib is modified to perform better, or differently, for MapServer. Now, there is an obligation to release the source code to the modified version of ShapeLib no matter what the value of that value-added might be. That is what the GPL obligates. MapServer itself is still governed by whatever license that its creator decides to apply. It depends what you call utilizes. If Mapserver links with the ShapeLib library, the latter being under GPL licence, then its source code has to be released. This is the contaminating part of GPL. The situation you describe is true if ShapeLib is under LGPL. If it is under GPL, everything linked to it must be under a GPL-compliant licence. As Daniel says, GPL code can not be embedded in or linked to a closed source application. Period. Please also note that the GPL licence does not prevent any commercial usage of the software. Hopes this helps to clarify things. Vincent Also take into consideration development platform/language. My group (MapWindow project) has a number of people using our GIS SDK for commercial applications in the .NET platform. MapWindow is licensed under MPL 1.1 which supports commercial usage. Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic nenad.milasino...@zesium.com wrote: Hello, I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. Best regards. -- Nenad Milasinovic Software Development and Testing --- ZESIUM mobile d.o.o. Valentina Vodnika 8/9 21000 Novi Sad Serbia Tel: +381 (0)21 472 15 48 Fax: +381 (0)21 472 15 49 Mob: +381 (0)61 231 41 20 E-mail: nenad.milasino...@zesium.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org/ Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org/ Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/ Science Commons Fellow, Geospatial Data http://sciencecommons.org Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ -- - collaborate, communicate, compete == = Sent from Madison, WI, United States ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Daniel Ames amesd...@isu.edu wrote: IANAL either, but I do read wikipedia. So by way of clarification... Everything I've read makes a clear distinction between GPL and LGPL such that GPL code can not be embedded in or linked to a closed source application. Period. Whereas L-GPL licensed code can be linked to a closed source application. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License So if the individual wants to link to GPL licensed code/libraries and is willing to make his code GPL then fine. He can still run a commercial business based on this code, as many people do. But if he wants to keep his code under some closed-source license then he can not link to or embed any GPL licensed code or library. Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out between GPL and LGPL makes sense. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions. -- Chris All that said, please note that GPL does not prevent anyone from commercializing any technology, and that was the thrust of the original question, if I recall correctly, although, the OP specifically asked for only LGPL technology, so GPL was out anyway. In that sense, LGPL is compatible with GPL, but GPL is not compatible with LGPL. In any case, all the more reason to consult an actual lawyer before setting out to do a commercial venture, or, be prepared to make money while openly sharing your code. Nothing to hide is always the better policy, or, at least the more headache-free policy. - Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Daniel Ames amesd...@isu.edu wrote: Nenad, The OSGeo projects use a variety of licenses. You'll see LGPL, MPL, GPL, MIT, and others. If you are developing commercial tools, you'll need to avoid GPL (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Disclaimer: IANAL. Get legal advice from your lawyer before embarking on your million dollar enterprise. I'll correct you, because, as stated above, you are misrepresenting at best, and wrong at worst. ;-) GPL does not prevent you from making money. GPL only requires that if you modify the code that is under GPL, then you must redistribute the modified code under GPL. Granted this may not be easy to figure out in real world scenarios, but consider the following -- Let's say ShapeLib is published under GPL (I don't know whether or not it is; this is only for illustration purpose). Let's say, MapServer utilizes ShapeLib, but doesn't modify ShapeLib, but uses ShapeLib as is. Let's say, MapServer's creator decides to make millions off of MapServer, Inc. He is under no obligation to release the source code of MapServer, but he is obligated to release the source code of ShapeLib, which is no big deal, because the source code of ShapeLib is already available to anyone. On the other hand, let's say, ShapeLib is modified to perform better, or differently, for MapServer. Now, there is an obligation to release the source code to the modified version of ShapeLib no matter what the value of that value-added might be. That is what the GPL obligates. MapServer itself is still governed by whatever license that its creator decides to apply. Also take into consideration development platform/language. My group (MapWindow project) has a number of people using our GIS SDK for commercial applications in the .NET platform. MapWindow is licensed under MPL 1.1 which supports commercial usage. Dan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic nenad.milasino...@zesium.com wrote: Hello, I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. Best regards. -- Nenad Milasinovic Software Development and Testing --- ZESIUM mobile d.o.o. Valentina Vodnika 8/9 21000 Novi Sad Serbia Tel: +381 (0)21 472 15 48 Fax: +381 (0)21 472 15 49 Mob: +381 (0)61 231 41 20 E-mail: nenad.milasino...@zesium.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt crschm...@crschmidt.net wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: .. Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out between GPL and LGPL makes sense. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions. .. This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the link provided above, we have the following -- Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked for by the OP) program with LGPL GIS SDK or library. The answer would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we linking? Are we doing a simple fork and exec? Do we have some other borderline case? Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free. I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all what I do with GPLed software. It only stops me from restricting others. Puneet. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
Here is a concrete example: I believe OpenJUMP plug-ins must be released under the GPL, because they are dynamically loaded and share data structures with the core program. This is a good discussion. Thanks. :] On a side note: I believe that UDig is released under the LGPL and it is cross-platform. It might suit the needs of the original poster. Landon Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of P Kishor Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:19 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt crschm...@crschmidt.net wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: . Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out between GPL and LGPL makes sense. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions. . This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the link provided above, we have the following -- Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the 'main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked for by the OP) program with LGPL GIS SDK or library. The answer would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we linking? Are we doing a simple fork and exec? Do we have some other borderline case? Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free. I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all what I do with GPLed software. It only stops me from restricting others. Puneet. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
But if he wants to keep his code under some closed-source license then he can not link to or embed any GPL licensed code or library. Whence licence exceptions e.g. in ExtJS (http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php) to allow using ExtJS (GPL) with an application/library that is distributed as an open source type of license. My understanding is that what this tells is if you are distributing a closed-source app, either GPL it (or buy a license, in the specific case of ExtJS) but if you're in the open source bandwagon, then you can use our GPL'ed piece and not have to relicense your already open source software to GPL. I think things are clearer for me now. Yves ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:47:32PM -0400, Yves Moisan wrote: But if he wants to keep his code under some closed-source license then he can not link to or embed any GPL licensed code or library. Whence licence exceptions e.g. in ExtJS (http://extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php) to allow using ExtJS (GPL) with an application/library that is distributed as an open source type of license. Assuming that you consider them valid. Red Hat Legal is firm that this exception clause isn't valid. -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471509#c2 (The comment even points out that the FLOSS exception would require you to make your program not open source in order to apply, because you limit the field of use, which is a violation of the OSD.) ExtJS is a whole different ball of wax than the OP was talking about; it's best not to treat too much in that project's licensing as doctrine, since it's different from any other open sourced project I've ever dealt with, and unusual in a number of ways. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
-Message d'origine- De : discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss- boun...@lists.osgeo.org] De la part de Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) Envoyé : mardi 5 mai 2009 18:00 À : OSGeo Discussions Objet : Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries On 5-May-09, at 6:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic wrote: I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. All OSGeo applications are open source licensed and can be built on top of on most operating systems. On http://osgeo.org there is a list of projects that are under the OSGeo umbrella, some are specifically libraries for processing or data conversion, whereas others are application frameworks or desktop/web applications you can customise. Do you have something specific you are looking to create? Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Hi, For the client part of the platform, OpenScales.org is a tool licensed under LGPL and based on ActionScript3 and/or Flex and/or AIR that aims to fullfill the lacks of the clients coded in JavaScript(like OpenLayers) using fully the resources of the computers. Editing a large number of vectors will be possible and enhanced using the AMF3 protocol. Thanks to the virtual machine, the same code is used with same results under every browser (computer and mobile) but of course the performances depend on the implementation of the virtual machine. See http://openscales.org for more details and http://groups.google.com/group/openscales-dev for questions. Regards, Aurelien Barbier-Accary Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et réservés à l'usage exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut également être protégé par le secret professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. L'intégrité du message ne pouvant être assurée sur Internet, la responsabilité du groupe Atos Origin ne pourra être recherchée quant au contenu de ce message. Bien que les meilleurs efforts soient faits pour maintenir cette transmission exempte de tout virus, l'expéditeur ne donne aucune garantie à cet égard et sa responsabilité ne saurait être recherchée pour tout dommage résultant d'un virus transmis. This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos Origin group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
Thanks Tyler, I am looking for Java GIS library, which is capable of working with various geospatial data formats: ESRI shapefiles, KML, GML, PostGis, GeoTiff etc. I am looking for library that is quite stable and with remarkable rendering capabilities, panning and zooming. I want to define somehow what will be seen in particular zoom layer, and how (styling). Also major requirement is freedom to place additional level contained from symbols on top of basically static background map. It is required that symbols on top layer often change their style and that should not affect rendering of map too much. I need to develop desktop application with support for vector maps. I already look at Geotools library, and i am looking for something similar but with better rendering performance. Best regards. - original message Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries Sent: Tue, 05 May 2009 From: Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)tmitch...@osgeo.org On 5-May-09, at 6:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic wrote: I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. All OSGeo applications are open source licensed and can be built on top of on most operating systems. On http://osgeo.org there is a list of projects that are under the OSGeo umbrella, some are specifically libraries for processing or data conversion, whereas others are application frameworks or desktop/web applications you can customise. Do you have something specific you are looking to create? Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss --- original message end ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
I already look at Geotools library, and i am looking for something similar but with better rendering performance. I don't think such an open source project exists, at least not under the LGPL. A couple of other projects you could check out are gvSIG and the IGeoDesktop from the deegree Project. However, I think you are going to find a tough time doing better than the rendering code in Geotools. Why not contact the Geotools developers and ask about funding and/or assisting the development of the improvements you need to their rendering system? One good thing to remember about open source software communities: You often get out what you are willing to put in. Landon Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Ljiljana Ilic Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 12:57 PM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries Thanks Tyler, I am looking for Java GIS library, which is capable of working with various geospatial data formats: ESRI shapefiles, KML, GML, PostGis, GeoTiff etc. I am looking for library that is quite stable and with remarkable rendering capabilities, panning and zooming. I want to define somehow what will be seen in particular zoom layer, and how (styling). Also major requirement is freedom to place additional level contained from symbols on top of basically static background map. It is required that symbols on top layer often change their style and that should not affect rendering of map too much. I need to develop desktop application with support for vector maps. I already look at Geotools library, and i am looking for something similar but with better rendering performance. Best regards. - original message Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries Sent: Tue, 05 May 2009 From: Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)tmitch...@osgeo.org On 5-May-09, at 6:07 AM, Nenad Milasinovic wrote: I am interested is there any reliable open source, LGPL licensed GIS SDK or library suited for building commercial, platform independent GIS application on top of it. I am also interested for commercial solutions but only as SDK or library. I will appreciate any help. All OSGeo applications are open source licensed and can be built on top of on most operating systems. On http://osgeo.org there is a list of projects that are under the OSGeo umbrella, some are specifically libraries for processing or data conversion, whereas others are application frameworks or desktop/web applications you can customise. Do you have something specific you are looking to create? Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss --- original message end ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
I'm curious and I have seen the GNU libc license, and it's obviously GPL. According to this thread, if I have well understood the GPL, all software linked with glibc are licensed under GPL ? I had seen http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#PortProgramToGL wich suggest that a lib such as glibc is under LGPL. But the license text of glibc is well the GPL, with the last paragraph : This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. What I have missed ? Jérôme - Original Message - From: P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com To: OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt crschm...@crschmidt.net wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: .. Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out between GPL and LGPL makes sense. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions. .. This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the link provided above, we have the following -- Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked for by the OP) program with LGPL GIS SDK or library. The answer would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we linking? Are we doing a simple fork and exec? Do we have some other borderline case? Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free. I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all what I do with GPLed software. It only stops me from restricting others. Puneet. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:09:50PM +0200, Cuinet Jérôme wrote: I'm curious and I have seen the GNU libc license, and it's obviously GPL. It's not GPL, it's LGPL. Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, glibc is free software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library According to this thread, if I have well understood the GPL, all software linked with glibc are licensed under GPL ? If glibc was GPL, yes. I had seen http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#PortProgramToGL wich suggest that a lib such as glibc is under LGPL. But the license text of glibc is well the GPL, with the last paragraph : This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. Where are you getting the license text of glibc that it says this? I can't find a license file which indicates this. What I have missed ? Jérôme - Original Message - From: P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com To: OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt crschm...@crschmidt.net wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: .. Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out between GPL and LGPL makes sense. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions. .. This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the link provided above, we have the following -- Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked for by the OP) program with LGPL GIS SDK or library. The answer would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we linking? Are we doing a simple fork and exec? Do we have some other borderline case? Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free. I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all what I do with GPLed software. It only stops me from restricting others. Puneet. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries
Yeah ! I found the flaw : There is two files in glibc folder, COPYING and COPYING.LIB. COPYING is the GPL text. COPYING.LIB is the LGPL text. Logic ! And the presence of the license text don't mean that the software is under that license. The mention that means what license is to be applied could be under any file writen by the copyright holder, and in this case it is the README file. It is what I have missed. Thanks Jérôme - Original Message - From: Christopher Schmidt crschm...@crschmidt.net To: OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:09:50PM +0200, Cuinet Jérôme wrote: I'm curious and I have seen the GNU libc license, and it's obviously GPL. It's not GPL, it's LGPL. Released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, glibc is free software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library According to this thread, if I have well understood the GPL, all software linked with glibc are licensed under GPL ? If glibc was GPL, yes. I had seen http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#PortProgramToGL wich suggest that a lib such as glibc is under LGPL. But the license text of glibc is well the GPL, with the last paragraph : This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. Where are you getting the license text of glibc that it says this? I can't find a license file which indicates this. What I have missed ? Jérôme - Original Message - From: P Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com To: OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GIS_Libraries On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Christopher Schmidt crschm...@crschmidt.net wrote: On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:55:47AM -0500, P Kishor wrote: .. Thanks Dan (and Christopher and others), I see the distinction now between GPL and LGPL. However, I am reading the actual GPL text and its extensive FAQ, instead of Wikipedia's interpretation of it, to try and sift through all the variations and exceptions to better understand this now. Hopefully I will come out better informed from this process. In the meantime, the distinction that you point out between GPL and LGPL makes sense. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL The combination itself is then available under those GPL versions. .. This actually gets even more clear as mud... from the para above the link provided above, we have the following -- Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. Using shared memory to communicate with complex data structures is pretty much equivalent to dynamic linking. So, the above question is possibly closer in spirit to the OP that started this thread. Can I create a commercial (and ostensibly closed source, although that closed-source-ness of the program was not asked for by the OP) program with LGPL GIS SDK or library. The answer would be yes. But, the answer would be yes with GPL as well, but then we would get into whether or not the result would be open or closed source, and what the license of the result would be. Yes, I muddied the issue a bit by using the example of ShapeLib, but, perhaps that is a good thing, because it does illustrate the need for thinking it through carefully... what are we doing with the GPL program? Are we linking? Are we doing a simple fork and exec? Do we have some other borderline case? Once again, the clearest advice would be -- if you think you have the possibility of creating a business that is based on software worth protecting its source, and yet want to use other free software, pony up some cash up-front and get a real lawyer to advice you. Don't listen to folks on mailing lists or read wikipedia articles... invest in a lawyer. Otherwise, take the easy way out and stay free. I actually quite like GPL's philosophy -- it doesn't restrict at all what I do
