Re: [DebianGIS] Re: [Qgis-user] ECW Licence
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:54:47AM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >I also find 'similar to GPL
> >and at no charge' is a quite rough definition of the spirit of FOSS. In
> >a few words, ECW almost-free license needs major revisions...
> I would concur that the current public use license is not very precise. I
> believe that ERMapper uses "GPL-like" to mean any truely open source
> but of course that is not clearly stated, and for a legally cautious
> organization like Debian it is likely not acceptable.
> I would suggest taking the concerns directly to ERMapper. For instance,
> start a thread on the issue in the ECW SDK forum hosted by ERMapper.
> OSGeo is also likely to need to do a legal analysis of the ECW SDK and
> I'd appreciate if you let me know if you do start such a thread so I
> can follow and participate in it as well.
> Best regards,
Well, I have currently some issue in subscribing the forum (maybe the
confirmation request is eated by anti-spam measures on murphy), anyway
the most relevant post is
Where Tom Lynch reports:
Some examples of use cases of the SDK under the "Public Use" License
used as a GDAL driver - no problem here
used as a GDAL driver in a FOSS project like MapServer - no problem
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.
So AFAIK the current almost-free licesing is not perceived as an issue
by ERMapper folks. Unfortunately, I still think GDAL MIT license is simply not
compatible with the GPL-compatible license. Which renders
undistributable also pure GPL sw which use GDAL as their inner engine.
Francesco P. Lovergine