Re: [vorlon@netexpress.net: Re: Bug#181969: [mdadams@ece.uvic.ca: Re: JasPer licensing wrt Debian Linux]]
Dear Branden:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > F. This software is for use only in hardware or software products
> > that are compliant with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). No
> > license or right to this Software is granted for products that do not
> > comply with ISO/IEC 15444-1. The JPEG-2000 Part 1 standard can be
> > purchased from the ISO.
If you are going to quote from the JasPer software license, please
quote from the current version of the license (and not an obsolete
version). In the last year, the license has been revised so that the
above clause only applies to the JPEG-2000 codec in JasPer. In
particular, the license now reads:
F. The JPEG-2000 codec implementation included in the JasPer software
is for use only in hardware or software products that are compliant
with ISO/IEC 15444-1 (i.e., JPEG-2000 Part 1). No license or right to
this codec implementation is granted for products that do not comply
with ISO/IEC 15444-1.
This is one of the reasons why I object when people claim that JasPer
is not free software. Only the JPEG-2000 codec module has a usage
restriction, not the JasPer library proper. I could have released the
JasPer codec modules separately from the JasPer library, but I simply
do not have the manpower to do so. (This would require more effort
for multiple software distributions.) The JasPer software may be
used FREELY (IN YOUR STRICT SENSE OF THE WORD "FREE") without the
JPEG-2000 support.
> I believe the above will both signal members of the Free Software and
> Open Source communities that they will need to look elsewhere for
> software satisfying their licensing requirements, and place the
> responsibility for the failure to license the reference implementation
> for general-purpose use where it belongs.
Although I wish that Debian could also benefit from the use of JasPer,
I would like to note that many software projects (many of which are
open source) have not found the compliance clause to be problematic.
This is why I would like to understand better what makes Debian
different from other projects. Is this simply a religious debate
(about what constitutes "free")? Perhaps this is not the case, but
sometimes, if I may be frank, it feels this way.
Sincerely,
Michael
---
Michael Adams, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Elec. and Comp. Engineering, University of Victoria
P.O. Box 3055 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, CANADA
E-mail: mdadams@ece.uvic.ca, Web: www.ece.uvic.ca/~mdadams
Reply to: