On 14-12-15 10:47, Rashad Kanavath wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Okay. This was a mistake on my side of being not clear. I was saying
> embedded sources are not a good idea. I consider this an "issue". I have
> asked them to allow use external geotrans instead of embedded sources.
>
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/utils/geotranz
Embedded copies are an issue in general, but the severity depends on
whether the code has license issues and if the Debian package is
actually usable instead of the embedded copy.
Rule of thumb: Using embedded copies for building the Debian package is
strongly discouraged, if we have the software packaged that should be
used instead. If the embedded code has license issues, it must be
excluded from the repacked upstream tarball.
The geotranz hasn't been updated since 2014-01-05, and seemingly only
because it was NMUed before. We should talk to the maintainer about
moving the package to the Debian GIS team where it can benefit from team
maintenance.
Yes, please. Thanks!
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Sadly true. I will ask them for a correction.
>>> 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.
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1