[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [DebianGIS] JAI-core acceptable in non-free?

Not just Openjump,
Almost any java gis program relies on jai (geotools library, kosmo
gis, gvSig, openjump, udig, diva gis, ...).
I have not yet done a lot of research (and my knowledge of java is too
small to do it quickly) but it might be possible to separate the core
functionality to main and other modules to contrib. On the other hand
I don't think many users would prefer af fully free package with
almost no grid/image facilities over a contrib package which includes
more functionality.

I cannot judge on whether we should support Openjump 1.0, but it would
be nice if we could one day create gvSIG and geotools packages. This
are really projects with a large momentum. A well working JAI package
is definitely useful for packaging them (although it is certainly not
the only thing needed).


On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Francesco P. Lovergine
<frankie@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 01:40:46PM +0200, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
>> I have been trying to find out whether jai-core (java advanced
>> imaging) is acceptable for distribution in 'non-free'.
>> It's a library that is used by (among others) a large number of open
>> source java GIS applications.
> Johan
> Thanks for your reviewing. I have the same doubts about JAI and dependent
> software. That would require moving openjump in contrib in order to have
> it updated to current 1.3 with raster support.
> I would also add that currently OsGeo incubation for OpenJump has been
> stalled because proejct team has not the energy
> to follow up OsGeo requirements. Note that OpenJump is also a pre-requirement
> for Degree (currently an OsGeo project) AFAIK, which renders the whole thing
> quite weird.
> Currently OpenJump 1.0 is almost usable, but it has a few problems with some
> menu entries that cause some non fatal exceptions and usual ipv6 problem.
> I wonder if we have still to support it as is.
> --
> Francesco P. Lovergine

Reply to: