MapGuide fork of AGG
Steve.Lime at DNR.STATE.MN.US
Wed Oct 24 01:06:37 EDT 2007
I don't think so, or only in a limited case, but I'm not a license guy.
As I understand
what Paul said way back that would be the case if one distributed
binaries linked with
AGG 2.5 (and one could always do 2.4). I'm not even sure what a GPL'd
since you wouldn't have the source, although I found some documents that
that you would have to distribute the source for a period of time (but
license, GPL I guess)? As a user it wouldn't worry me, not sure about
I also thought Paul Spencer had talked to the AGG guy (Maxim) and there
possibility of an exemption for MapServer (w/regards to GPL).
>>> Dave McIlhagga <dmcilhagga at DMSOLUTIONS.CA> 10/23/07 11:15 PM >>>
So this means effectively we're looking at a relicensing of MapServer
On 23-Oct-07, at 3:28 PM, Steve Lime wrote:
> I think this is a pretty good synopsis, thanks for providing it.
> I'd add
> that I don't see
> a big problem with AGG 2.5 and a GPL license and MapServer either.
> As Paul Ramsey pointed out back in November:
> "For AGG, you'll be linking to a GPL library, which means you won't be
> able to distribute BSD binaries anymore -- any binary linked against
> AGG will have to go out under the GPL. Basically, if you only care
> about Mapserver as an open source product, it's no problem, but if
> you have any plans to distribute altered versions as closed source,
> you cannot do it with the AGG dependency turned on."
> I'd rather see the MapGuide and MapServer folks (along with the other
> open source
> projects that use AGG) work with Maxim to fix build issues if
>>>> On 10/23/2007 at 3:06 AM, in message
> <d2b988930710230106m71bff5aboa4b6b1a1c9b77546 at mail.gmail.com>, thomas
> <thomas.bonfort at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> On 10/23/07, Paul Spencer <pspencer at dmsolutions.ca> wrote:
>>> Steve, Daniel, I encourage you to voice your opinions on the
>>> internals list ... the more the better. I would love to see some
>>> collaboration between mapguide and mapserver at this level. It
>>> like easy common ground to get started talking together.
>> hi all,
>> I've been thinking about the pros and cons of having an osgeo fork
>> AGG, from a mapserver point of view but I think most of it applies
>> mapguide too.
>> * the agg build process is a pain for the users, as the agg
>> need some modifications before some of the mapscript components can
>> run. I see two issues that have to be fixed in this field:
>> - the freetype font manager isn't included in the default built.
>> is by design and not a bug, so any fixes on this end will never be
>> backported to the official 2.4+ agg branches ( at least imho )
>> - makefiles and configure logic should include the ability to build
>> position independant code (-fPIC). I don't think fixes for this
>> be included in the official agg releases, as I think the aim is to
>> have agg build by just typing 'make' and not having to configure
>> this could push us to have an osgeo tarball of agg 2.4 , with these
>> few glitches fixed. I don't know if we can call that a fork, but
>> at least allows us to keep a bsd compatible version secure whatever
>> happens on the agg side, and a place to point the endusers at
>> they encounter build problems.
>> * do any folks at osgeo have the incentive and/or knowledge to
>> continue on agg development? backporting fixes should be easy to do
>> (for the time being this is useless as maxim of agg is still
>> maintaining 2.4 - this might not last for long though), but keeping
>> with features of 2.5+ (when and if they come) seems unfeasible for
>> specialist people (without resorting to blindly backporting agg
>> trunk's changes which seems a rather lame thing to do given maxim's
>> wish in change of license)
>> * this is mapserver specific, and I>> it seems to me that the agg license change isn't a deal breaker for
>> us. folks can continue "using" an agg-gpl enabled mapserver, and the
>> businesses who are reselling modified/bundled/etc versions of
>> mapserver can either continue with the gd-only version, or pay up
>> a commercial agg license. I didn't follow the discussions when pdf
>> support was added, but pdflib is far more constraining than agg in
>> sense you have to pay a license for /any/ commercial use.
>>> In particular, I think mapserver could benefit from Traian's
>>> modifications for rendering into a different buffer to solve the
>>> alpha problems and for the rendering on transparent background
>> after sorting this out off-list with Traian, it turns out that there
>> is no bug in the agg blending functions, just a mixup in which
>> blenders to use and what ouptut they are supposed to generate
>> just my .02€
>>> On 22-Oct-07, at 2:12 PM, Steve Lime wrote:
>>>> This should be a nice mess, especially if there is a broader
>>>> community fork of AGG 2.4. I'm curious
>>>> why a fork is even necessary? The RFC doesn't go into any detail.
>>>> The one piece of code mentioned
>>>> in the thread certainly doesn't necessitate a fork.
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2007 at 12:11 PM, in message <471A36AC.
>>>>>>> 8090403 at mapgears.com>, Daniel
>>>> Morissette <dmorissette at MAPGEARS.COM> wrote:
>>>>> MapServer Dev's
>>>>> This is just a heads up that MapGuide has a RFC open right now
>>>>> adding support for AGG rendering, and as part of that they plan
>>>>> AGG 2.4 and make some improvements to it:
>>>>> A few people have already suggested on the mapguide-internals
>>>>> they do that in a way that other OSGeo projects such as MapServer
>>>>> benefit from the improved version. Interested parties can review
>>>>> thread in the archives at
>>> |Paul Spencer pspencer at dmsolutions.ca |
>>> |Chief Technology Officer |
>>> |DM Solutions Group Inc http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |
More information about the mapserver-dev