MapGuide fork of AGG

Doyon, Jean-Francois jdoyon at NRCAN.GC.CA
Wed Oct 24 11:15:10 EDT 2007

PostgreSQL is released under a BSD license ... So you'd be safe, because
the binary components that you'd include with MapServer (as in MS4W for
example) would only inculde PostgreSQL stuff, and nothing PostGIS
specific.  PostGIS lives on the server only (AFAIK?).

If you were to distribute server-side components (a custom PostgreSQL +
PostGIS bundle?) then you might have some problems ...


-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Developers List [mailto:MAPSERVER-DEV at LISTS.UMN.EDU]
On Behalf Of Dave McIlhagga
Sent: October 24, 2007 10:36
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] MapGuide fork of AGG

Good summary Frank.

I realize this is a bit of a tangent from the original discussion -- but
does anyone have an idea of where the line is vis-a-vis PostGIS since it
too is GPL? ie. if a proprietary solution built with MapScript is
distributed built on MapServer today AND PostGIS -- would that be in
violation of the license?


On 24-Oct-07, at 10:58 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>> Ok - let me rephrase that. Does that mean when distributing MapServer

>> with AGG 2.5, in that instance all of that code (including the 
>> MapServer source code) would have to be distributed via a GPL 
>> license.
> Dave,
> If one distributes MapServer linked with a GPL AGG I *think* you are 
> required to provide MapServer under GPL terms.  Because there is no 
> one contributor who has rights to alter MapServer licensing terms I 
> believe the distributor would be in violation of the AGG GPL terms.
>> Does that also then mean that any users who are bundling MapServer 
>> today in proprietary solutions could not do so with this build?
> There is some ambiguity as you "move up the stack" as to whether the 
> GPL terms still apply.  For instance, a web front end that involved a 
> GPL AGG enabled MapServer via http/wms would likely be ok.  But 
> arguable a MapScript application would have to be distributed under 
> GPL.
>> Does this mean that if other 3rd party proprietary components are 
>> included in a distributed build that they too would be subject to 
>> availability via GPL?
> If they are considered to be linked with AGG, and if they redistribute

> them, then yes.
>> If the above are true - I can think of a few pretty significant 
>> instances where this decision could be pretty big problems.
> This is my conclusion.
> While end users who don't redistribute their binaries (including those

> providing proprietary web based services) should be ok, anyone who has

> to distribute software needs to think very carefully before 
> distributing GPL AGG enabled binaries.
> We could request some specific legal advice on this topic, but think 
> it is clear that MapServer needs a non-GPL AGG fork that can be 
> dropped in and used for distributors even if lags the mainstream AGG.
> Best regards,
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> +--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,  
> warmerdam at
> light and sound - activate the windows |
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http:// 

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list