2007.07.14 08:00 "[Tiff] [ANNOUNCE]: Libtiff 3.9.0beta released", by Andrey Kiselev

2007.07.16 11:18 "Re: [Tiff] [ANNOUNCE]: Libtiff 3.9.0beta released", by Andrey Kiselev

On 7/16/07, Andy Cave <andy.cave@hamillroad.com> wrote:

I hope that this is not the case. If so, I think that's bad, as it's the only code in LibTIFF which is not completely unencumbered from patents, license fees and GPL. When we had LZW in LibTIFF and it was patented, there used to be a 'dummy' file that was compiled in by default and to get real LZW you had to explicitly compile it in. I think this should be the case with JBIG-KIT given that:

  1. it is covered by patents - even though these can be obtained for free.
  2. you have to license it (from Cambridge University).
  3. it is restricted by GPL.


I do not see the point. Libtiff does not contain neither patented algorithms, nor GPLed code.

Otherwise, if someone just happens to have JBIG-KIT on their PC and builds LibTIFF they could end up infringing on patents, infringing on copyright licensing and violating GPL.

I do not see the point either. If you have JBIG-KIT on your PC that means you solved patent/licensing problems for yourself in some way. libtiff adds nothing to that problems. To start violating GPL you should start distributing software, because GPL is all about distribution (please, re-read license terms). To start distributing JBIG-enabled software you should place JBIG library in the archive with your program and at that point you should understand what you doing. It is not a problem to link libtiff with JBIG-KIT on your PC, GPL will start working when you will redistribute JBIG-KIT with your software.

I think that if this happens, it could open up a whole can of worms - for example rather than have to then publish their (commercial) code, a company might end up suing the people who opened up this can of worms.

It should be quite naive developer to include GPLed binaries in closed source solution. I can hardly imagine that. Also you are using word 'commercial' the second time as an opposite of GPL. But GPLed solutions are commercial too. I have two commercial solutions just under my hand, it is SLES and RHEL Linux distributions, they are full of GPLed software (starting from the system heart, the kernel) and we paid a pile of money for both. Also I am recommend to learn how MontaVista works, it is probably one of the most widely used operating systems at the moment, and still GPLed, and still commercial.

Best regards,


Andrey V. Kiselev
ICQ# 26871517