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

Re: upgrade orfeotoolbox to 5.0

Hi Rashad,

Thanks for the clarifications, much appreciated.

On 04-09-15 16:11, Rashad M wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> The use of LGPL-{2,3} and then only linking to the file in
>> common-licenses because those files actually document LGPL-{2,3}+. The
>> "or later" clause has a big impact in license compatibily. If you want
>> to get away with only linking to the common-licenses the shortnames need
>> to change to LGPL-2+ & LGPL-3+, but that's not what the copyright
>> headers say.
>> Modules/ThirdParty/SiftFast/src/ is clearly LGPL-3+ (not v3 only),
>> that's an easy fix.
>> Modules/ThirdParty/OssimPlugins/src/ossim* have a different mix of LGPL
>> declarations, a lot of them without any explicit version. So which is it?
> All these files in Modules/ThirdParty/OssimPlugins/src/ossim are derived
> form OSSIM which was using LGPL-2 or higher. All these class have mentioned
> LGPL in their license. But it is sure that they are LGPL-2 or higher.
> Specifiying LGPL-2+ in the debian/copyright for these file would be
> sufficient?

Almost, there is no license paragraph for LGPL-2 other than the single
sentence referring to common-licenses.

I've pushed a fix for the LGPL-2+ license issue.

> FYI, svn trunk now shows MIT license -
> http://svn.osgeo.org/ossim/trunk/ossim/LICENSE.txt

Are the more details about the OTB license change elsewhere?

MIT seems a better choice than CeCILL-2.0 where license compatibilty is
concerned, so in general I applaud this switch to a more common license.

>> The ITK derived files are unclear about which version they're taken
>> from, and ITK upstream uses different licenses for their versions:
>> http://www.itk.org/ITK/project/license.html
> Files in Modules/ThirdParty/ITK/include/
> are all derived from ITK4 and hence license applied is Apache-2.0. The one
> file which says CECILL is otbWrapImageFilter. This has a slight
> modification from the orginal ITK class itkWrapImageFilter which has
> License Apache-2.0
> These are pending patches kept for OTB but not pushed to itk because they
> are in ITK deprecated modules. one class itkUnaryFuctionImageFilter.* is
> rejected by ITK because the modification only concerns otb.
> I can include this detail in the comment section. would that be sufficient?

A comment for the ITK derived files is an option, but not strictly required.

The Comment or Source field in the copyright header does still need to
document why 6S and SuperBuild are excluded.

>> I'm not even halfway done with the license & copyright review, but I'm
>> done for today. It's already clear that the copyright file needs more
>> work to properly document the license & copyright for the OTB source.
>> I've pushed my changes so far, but more are still required.

I'll finish my copyright review and see what's left after that, I don't
think that'll much if any.

Kind Regards,


 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1

Reply to: