[OSGeo-Standards] Please review: Open Letter asking to avoid format fragmentation in LiDAR standards

[Even Rouault]

Le samedi 11 avril 2015 13:43:14, Mateusz Loskot a écrit :
> On 11 April 2015 at 13:19, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com> wrote:
> > Le samedi 11 avril 2015 12:18:39, Sebastiaan Couwenberg a écrit :
> >> On 04/11/2015 09:24 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> >> > I forgot to share URL:
> >> > http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter
> >> 
> >> Are you aware of the legal issue in LASzip which likely contributed to
> >> ESRI developing their own alternative?
> >> 
> >> LASzip contains code from the FastAC algorithm which allows distribution
> >> but not modification.
> >> 
> >> The FastAC license is therefor incompatible with the LGPL-2.1+ license
> >> used for LASzip which guarantees the right to modification.
> > 
> > I believed the LGPL only guarantees the right to modification to the
> > source code that is licenced under LGPL, or am I wrong ? LGPL can (and
> > does) put constraints on code that uses it, but why/how could it put
> > constraints on code it uses ?
> > 
> > Similar situation: I can write GPL/LGPL code that works on Windows and
> > links against Windows system libraries, which don't give right to
> > modification, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that I chose GPL/LGPL
> > license for my code and doesn't prevent anyone using it under their
> > terms.
> 
> You can't contain code of those Windows libraries in GPL/LGPL-ed library.
> 
> Sebastiaan wrote "LASzip contains code from the FastAC", so the issue
> is still valid, isn't it?

Ah sorry for the noise, I read too quickly Sebastiaan's message. I thought 
LASzip was linking against a FastAC library. But it it incorporates directly 
its code, and with modifications (as seems suggested by 
http://trac.osgeo.org/osgeo/ticket/1341), then it is actually an issue.

> 
> Best regards,

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com