[gdal-dev] Licensing Policy for drivers and applications

[Tamas Szekeres]

Frank,

I've reviewed the document and it looks good to me, though it seems better
to enforce these constraints rather at deployment time and not at run-time.
However I would have some further questions:

1. With regards to GDAL_APPLICATION_LICENSE_POLICY=DEFAULT does this mean
that GDAL will provide an error if a licensing violation is happening at
run-time? For example when MapServer attempts to display an ECW and a MySQL
layer at the same time? If this is not the case, I would prefer changing
'DEFAULT' to 'NONRECIPROCAL' and it would prevent from loading the GPL
drivers during the default operation. Having
GDAL_APPLICATION_LICENSE_POLICY=NONRECIPROCAL would provide better match
with the licensing policy of GDAL itself which intends to be MIT/X.


2. In my opinion the user shouldn't override any specific settings (like
RECIPROCAL or PROPRIETARY) being enforced by the application. In this regard
the user is allowed to violate the GPL like loading proprietary drivers in
QGIS. I don't think if USE_ALL should be a valid environment setting either.
This should only be allowed by a compilation flag which is not intended to
be used for distribution purposes.


3. I think the user should only be allowed to override
GDAL_APPLICATION_LICENSE_POLICY=DEFAULT either by the environment settings
or in the SWIG interface.

4. I don't really understand the rationale behind the PREFER_PROPRIETARY and
PREFER_RECIPROCAL settings. Shouldn't we raise an error if a licence
violation is detected? I think we might have to decide which kind of the
licensing enforcement should be applied in GDAL, like:

Version 1, The actual licensing mode is predefined within the scope of the
execution (either by the applevel or environment setting) and GDAL should
avoid to load any incompatible drivers.

Version 2, The actual licensing mode may be controlled by the drivers loaded
and provide an error if an incompatible driver is about to be used.

I'm a bit hesitant to think Version 2 would be sufficient which allows to
change the licensing mode of the application at run-time. I think we should
enforce the same licensing mode at least during the scope of the execution
or the within a single deployment if possible.


Best regards,

Tamas




2011/1/29 Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>

> Folks,
>
> I have been thinking about how to adjust OSGeo4W in particular, and GDAL
> in general to make it easier to distribute software in a way that complies
> with the conflict between GPLed software and proprietary software.
>
> In the case of OSGeo4W the main restrictions is that we should not be
> distributing GRASS in such a way that proprietary drivers like the MrSID
> driver can be used without the user having knowingly combined them by
> themselves.
>
> To that end, I have prepared an RFC which attempts to address this at
> the GDAL driver registration level.  I'd appreciate feedback:
>
>  http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc34_license_policy
>
> Best regards,
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam<http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20110131/9d7cce4a/attachment.html