On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 12:06 -0400, Steve Halasz wrote: > > If I stepped on the toes of anyone negotiating with them, I apologise > > for that (and my zealotry), hopefully this will speed things up :) > > No worries about about stepping on my toes at least. But I thought I'd > list various communications I've had regarding this in the past: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00061.html > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=293346 > http://lists.maptools.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2005-February/005186.html I note that the ITP is still open, will you upload libecw to non-free? From my reading of their public use licence, it seems that debian can modify and redistribute libecw (including modified binaries). If so, perhaps gdal could suggest libecw (or a wrapper) and load it with dlopen instead of linking to and depending on it? This way it can stay in main, since it doesn't need libecw to run, but can take advantage of it when it is available. Is this technically feasible, or will headers from libecw be required? If so, perhaps ERMapper Inc. will be willing to freely licence the headers and package them separately. > I also got a personal reply to this last message from GDAL's primary > author Frank Warmerdam mildly chastising me for pushing this issue. It > appears ER Mapper's goals are incompatible with the DFSG. We've made our > hopes and concerns clear and I believe it's best to thank them for the > openness they've provided to date and not continue to press the issue. Fair enough. Would it be a good idea to document this issue on the debiangis wiki somewhere, and perhaps in the README.Debian for gdal/etc? -- bye, pabs http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=Paul+Wise&comaint=yes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part