ImageTools License and the GPL

Aug 4, 2011 at 10:43 PM

I was looking at the ImageTools license and see that it does have the Microsoft Permissive License - however, the library seems to link the SharpZLib.dll which is GPL'ed, implying that ImageTools is now GPL'ed (and everyone who uses ImageTools is now open source.

 

Does anyone have any insight on this, or am I finding the wrong information on SharpZLib?

 

Thanks

Coordinator
Aug 6, 2011 at 7:54 AM
There is also an extra clause on the website which says that you can
use the binaries in every project, at least I understand it like this.
The project exists for 2 years now and nobody complained or recognized
it yet.
Aug 6, 2011 at 9:15 AM

It’s a concern because the license on the codeplex page only shows the GPL 2.0 and not the exception clause. The exception clause shows up only in the source code and no license documentation is included with the ImageTools library. Since there is nothing in the exception which warrants that all of the code included in the library is actually copyrighted by the provider (and no such warranties can be expected) there’s nothing preventing some random contributor from claiming that all of the code using ImageTools does fall under the GPL regardless of the exception.

I actually have a meeting with our lawyer next week to discuss this very issue, but I would recommend switching ImageTools to use another, more appropriately licensed zip library – such as dotnetzip.

Thanks.

From: malignate88 [email removed]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:55 PM
To: Jamie MacLennan
Subject: Re: ImageTools License and the GPL [imagetools:267811]

From: malignate88

There is also an extra clause on the website which says that you can
use the binaries in every project, at least I understand it like this.
The project exists for 2 years now and nobody complained or recognized
it yet.

Coordinator
Aug 6, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Thank you for this information.

The exception clause I mean is from sharpziplib:

Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.


I decided to use sharpziplib because of performance reasons, it is much faster, but the license is a problem, you are right.

Am 06.08.2011 um 10:15 schrieb JamieMac:

From: JamieMac

It’s a concern because the license on the codeplex page only shows the GPL 2.0 and not the exception clause. The exception clause shows up only in the source code and no license documentation is included with the ImageTools library. Since there is nothing in the exception which warrants that all of the code included in the library is actually copyrighted by the provider (and no such warranties can be expected) there’s nothing preventing some random contributor from claiming that all of the code using ImageTools does fall under the GPL regardless of the exception.


I actually have a meeting with our lawyer next week to discuss this very issue, but I would recommend switching ImageTools to use another, more appropriately licensed zip library – such as dotnetzip.


Thanks.


From: malignate88 [email removed]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:55 PM
To: Jamie MacLennan
Subject: Re: ImageTools License and the GPL [imagetools:267811]


From: malignate88

There is also an extra clause on the website which says that you can
use the binaries in every project, at least I understand it like this.
The project exists for 2 years now and nobody complained or recognized
it yet.


Aug 7, 2011 at 3:46 AM

Yeah – that clause is in the source file, but I don’t know if it will stand up legally.

I’ll let you know what I hear back from our lawyer.

From: malignate88 [email removed]
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 2:25 AM
To: Jamie MacLennan
Subject: Re: ImageTools License and the GPL [imagetools:267811]

From: malignate88

Thank you for this information.

The exception clause I mean is from sharpziplib:

Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

I decided to use sharpziplib because of performance reasons, it is much faster, but the license is a problem, you are right.

Am 06.08.2011 um 10:15 schrieb JamieMac:



From: JamieMac

It’s a concern because the license on the codeplex page only shows the GPL 2.0 and not the exception clause. The exception clause shows up only in the source code and no license documentation is included with the ImageTools library. Since there is nothing in the exception which warrants that all of the code included in the library is actually copyrighted by the provider (and no such warranties can be expected) there’s nothing preventing some random contributor from claiming that all of the code using ImageTools does fall under the GPL regardless of the exception.

I actually have a meeting with our lawyer next week to discuss this very issue, but I would recommend switching ImageTools to use another, more appropriately licensed zip library – such as dotnetzip.

Thanks.

From: malignate88 [email removed]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:55 PM
To: Jamie MacLennan
Subject: Re: ImageTools License and the GPL [imagetools:267811]

From: malignate88

There is also an extra clause on the website which says that you can
use the binaries in every project, at least I understand it like this.
The project exists for 2 years now and nobody complained or recognized
it yet.

Aug 31, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Any news about this issue?

Thanks

Sep 12, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Just wondering why not use DotNetZip library, which has MSPL license?

Coordinator
Sep 12, 2011 at 4:38 PM
The reason was performance.

Am 12.09.2011 17:13, schrieb skalkin:

From: skalkin

Just wondering why not use DotNetZip library, which has MSPL license?


Sep 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM
malignate88 wrote:
The reason was performance.

Do you remember how big the difference in performance was? I'm currently choosing a compression library for my project, but can't find good benchmark tests. 

Coordinator
Sep 12, 2011 at 7:42 PM
I think, it was about 30%

Am 12.09.2011 19:51, schrieb skalkin:

From: skalkin

malignate88 wrote:
The reason was performance.

Do you remember how big the difference in performance was? I'm currently choosing a compression library for my project, but can't find good benchmark tests.