Re: OSSIM packaging (Was: OTB)
On 14-12-15 09:19, Rashad Kanavath wrote:
> There are issue with embedded sources inside ossim
>
> GeoTrans
> shapelib
> matrix lib
>
> But in the debian/copyright file, I found notes explaining these stuff.
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-grass/ossim.git/tree/debian/copyright#n171
What are the issues with these embedded sources?
shapelib is packaged, but the others are not. As long as their licensing
is not problematic, they don't have to be excluded from a repacked
upstream tarball.
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> I've looked at OSSIM 1.8.20-1 again, and the licensing is a mess. The
>> website claims that the code is under the LGPL-3, but most files
>> reference the top-level LICENSE.txt which contains the MIT/Expat license
>> terms. Some files claim the license is LGPL and reference the top-level
>> LICENSE.txt which is the aforementioned MIT/Expat license.
>>
>
> The current license is MIT for ossim-core. This is given incorrectly in the
> website.
Obviously. The relicensing from LGPL to MIT is incomplete. The fact that
the website is wrong is of secondary concern, the big problem is the
contradictory license headers, see for example:
ossim/src/ossim/base/ossimObject.cpp
It specifies licensing like this:
License: LGPL
See LICENSE.txt file in the top level directory for more details.
The LICENSE.txt file in the top level directory contains the terms of
the MIT license, not LGPL. This needs to be fixed upstream before we can
update OSSIM in Debian.
OSSIM 1.8.16 as currently in Debian is licensed differently from later
versions. Its LICENSE.txt file places OSSIM engine under the LGPL and
documents the differently licensed files. This matches the license
headers in the files.
The currently state of later versions give the impression that the OSSIM
developers don't care enough about licensing to have their source files
reflect the chosen license correctly.
> Note that there are some part of the code which are still under LPGL-2.
> ossim-plugins for instance. There are mostly thirdparty code contributed by
> OTB and others for reading specific format such as hdf, raw, kakadu etc..
> That never will come under ossim-core.
Did all the copyright holders of files in ossim-core agree to relicense
their contributions under the terms of the MIT license?
I'm currently not concerned about other ossim files than those under the
ossim/ subdirectory in the ossim release tarballs. That's the code we
have packaged in Debian currently. And that is already problematic, we
don't even have to worry about the possible mess in the other
subdirectories.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: