Re: upgrade orfeotoolbox to 5.0

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl> wrote:

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.

Thanks Bas.

> 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?

sorry. I wasn't clear before. the change of above license was for OSSIM not OTB. I noted because currently Modules/ThirdParty/OssimPlugins/src/ossim is using upstream license with an indication that full license text will be found in LICENSE.txt file. Since next release of ossim this will ve changed and maybe the files in Modules/ThirdParty/OssimPlugins/src/ossim

But there has been on going work on moving OTB license to Apache 2.0! .

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 will add that. Exclusion of 6S sources are discussed in list beofre. So I am not copy pasting here. For SuperBuild, there are patches directory in SuperBuild/patches which contains some specific patch for dependencies. currently it is a mix and excluding superbuild completely seems an easy pick.

As you said, I will include this information in copyright.

Thanks again for reviewing OTB.

>> 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,

Bas

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

Regards,
Rashad