Re: [DebianGIS] ECW SDK Licencing feedback
Sorry to reclaiming this quite old issue, but I would add some comments
about...
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:06:55PM -0400, Steve Halasz wrote:
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > From: Tom Lynch <tom.lynch@ermapper.com>
> > To: Paul Wise <pabs3@bonedaddy.net>
> > Cc: qa <qa@ermapper.com.au>
> > Subject: RE: Beta Feedback: All licences are non-free, therefore can never be distributed in GNU/Linux
> > Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:54:56 +0800
> >
> > Hello Paul,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> >
> > The ECW JPEG 2000 SDK does not, as you have said, have a "GPL Licensing"
> > option. The "Public Use" License Agreement is one of three agreements
> > under which it is possible to license the SDK distribution. It is intended
> > for use in what we have called "GPL style" applications. The use of the
> > term "GPL style" has probably lent to the development of a bit of
> > confusion, but here only means applications for which the source code is
> > made available, and
> > which require that the source code of all derived works is also made
> > available.
> >
> > There is also a "Free Use" license which permits the use of the SDK source
> > code in closed, proprietary applications provided that unlimited
> > compression functionality is not enabled and the applications are not
> > "Server Software" as discussed in the license document, and a "Commercial
> > Use" license which is basically a conventional commercial software license.
> >
> > None of these licensing agreements is intended to conform to the Debian
> > Free Software Guidelines. There are significant reasons why we have not
> > released a source code distribution under the standard GPL:
> >
> > - we need to retain a competitive advantage in certain markets
> > - we want to make the software usable in free, closed source applications
> > - we want to reserve certain other rights, such as over modification of the
> > ECW file format
> >
> > As far as software patents are concerned, we do hold certain patents on
> > wavelet compression and streaming imagery.
> >
> > See the text "Rights to use patents, including ERM???s large DWT and
> > streaming imagery patents, are given only for use with the ECW JPEG 2000
> > SDK and not for other uses." in the license document.
> >
> > We do not enforce these patents to obtain royalties from use of the ECW
> > file format and in fact, they exist largely to protect ER Mapper from
> > the enforcement of related or overlapping patents by litigious
> > competitors.
> >
> > We stipulate that the ECW file format not be modified in the SDK license
> > documents because of our concerns about the possibility of parallel file
> > formats being developed and creating needless interoperability problems.
> >
> > In the case of the JPEG 2000 file format, for which a compliant encoder and
> > decoder is included in the SDK, you may be aware that several corporations
> > (e.g. IBM and Ricoh) hold patents on the format which they have agreed not
> > to enforce on the normal use of JPEG 2000 files. It is therefore necessary
> > for us to require that the JPEG 2000 encoder in the SDK not be modified to
> > change the JPEG 2000 format files it produces, since the files produced
> > would be in violation of several patents. Likewise the MQ coder included
> > in the SDK cannot be used for purposes other than JPEG 2000 encoding.
> >
> > We require that people who want to distribute modified versions of the ECW
> > JPEG 2000 SDK submit changes to the code base back to us, so that all users
> > (free, commercial and otherwise) of the SDK can benefit from any
> > improvements that are made.
> >
> > We do not own a trademark on "ECW" or any related terms.
> >
> > Some examples of use cases of the SDK under the "Public Use" License
> > Agreement:
> >
> > used as a GDAL driver - no problem here
> >
> > used as a GDAL driver in a FOSS project like MapServer - no problem
> >
The main problem is that the ECW PUBLIC LIC adds some constraints which
render the whole product (mapserver+libecw for instance) not
distributable at all, unless the GPL code would add an exception
(something very similar to the SSL exception used in a few products out
there). This is a pre-requisite for non-free distribution AFAIK.
See for instance:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mysql-floss-license-exception.html
> > used as a GDAL driver in a commercial, closed source product - NOT OK
> > (would need to use "Free" or "Commercial" licenses and the product would
> > need to meet the additional requirements of these licenses)
> >
> > used as a GDAL driver in a commercial, open source product - may or may not
> > be OK, depending on the situation.
> >
> > We appreciate the spirit of the free software movement and that is what has
> > motivated our release of the SDK source code in the first place, as well as
> > our support for non-proprietary standards like JPEG 2000. Although
> > restrictions in the SDK licenses remain that prevent its distribution as
> > part of free software projects like Debian GNU/Linux, the ECW JPEG 2000 SDK
> > can still be used freely by people running Debian, in open source projects
> > that run on Debian.
> >
> > Thanks again for your feedback, and I hope this email will have clarified
> > our position on these issues.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tom Lynch
> > Development, ER Mapper
> > Phone: +61 8 93882900
> > Fax: +61 8 93882901
> > Email: tom.lynch@ermapper.com
> > Web: http://www.ermapper.com
> > Forums: http://forum.ermapper.com
> >
> > Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 14:54 +0800, Tom Lynch wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks for your feedback.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info, do you mind if I forward this to the debian gis
> > > email list?
> >
> > It's OK by me. If there is any particularly useful constructive
> > criticism after you post it, please send it my way. I am aware that
> > there may be dual-licensing models or workarounds that we haven't
> > explored fully, and we would be eager to release the SDK under a license
> > conforming to the definition of free software if there were a way
> > forward that met our other requirements.
> >
> > I will probably work the email I just sent you into a discussion document
> > to link from the product pages on ermapper.com. At the least we are aiming
> > at heading off the confusion that circles around the licensing of the SDK.
> >
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: