Hi,
I have grass5.0.0 on my Linux system. I want to import .hdf file for which I need to use r.in.gdal file. I have downloaded the "libgdal115-linux-grass.tar.gz - GDAL 1.1.5 for Linux". I have copied it in the $GISBASE/lib. Still it is not working. Can anybodt tell me how to install it and where to install it step by step.Thanks.
uttam.
_________________________________________________________________
Access Hotmail from your mobile now. http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/mobilesms/ Click here.
Uttam Kumar wrote:
Hi,
I have grass5.0.0 on my Linux system. I want to import .hdf file for which I need to use r.in.gdal file. I have downloaded the "libgdal115-linux-grass.tar.gz - GDAL 1.1.5 for Linux". I have copied it in the $GISBASE/lib. Still it is not working. Can anybodt tell me how to install it and where to install it step by step.Thanks.
Uttam,
libgdal115 is getting pretty ancient now and may not work with GRASS anymore,
I am not sure, but for sure it does not include the hdf support. I would
suggest you build and install GDAL from a recent release. You will to
investigate building with HDF support which is described briefly on the
building page:
http://www.remotesensing.org/gdal/gdal_building.html
For those building GRASS binary distributions I would encourage you to
build in a broad a set of optional GDAL formats as possible, including
stuff like hdf, jpeg2000 (via jasper) and so forth.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 16:10, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Uttam,
libgdal115 is getting pretty ancient now and may not work with GRASS
anymore, I am not sure, but for sure it does not include the hdf support. I
would suggest you build and install GDAL from a recent release. You will
to investigate building with HDF support which is described briefly on the
building page:
http://www.remotesensing.org/gdal/gdal_building.html
For those building GRASS binary distributions I would encourage you to
build in a broad a set of optional GDAL formats as possible, including
stuff like hdf, jpeg2000 (via jasper) and so forth.
Is it "JasPer Software License" GPL compatible?
Which GDAL/OGR drivers are GPL compatible/incompatible?
Radim
PS: I don't say that JPEG2000 should not be used,
I say that GPL is bad license for GRASS.
Radim,
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:23:05PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> For those building GRASS binary distributions I would encourage you to
> build in a broad a set of optional GDAL formats as possible, including
> stuff like hdf, jpeg2000 (via jasper) and so forth.
Is it "JasPer Software License" GPL compatible?
It is BSD-like license with the special clause to protect authors against
patent holders. HDF library has BSD-like license too.
GIF, TIFF, PNG, JPEG libraries --- all has BSD-like licenses.
Which GDAL/OGR drivers are GPL compatible/incompatible?
I think the only problematic drivers are the ones, based on non-free
third-party libraries. These are ECW, JPEG2000 (via Kakadu), MrSID.
Best regards,
Andrey
--
Andrey V. Kiselev
Home phone: +7 812 5274898 ICQ# 26871517
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:28:01PM +0400, Andrey Kiselev wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:23:05PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> > For those building GRASS binary distributions I would encourage you to
> > build in a broad a set of optional GDAL formats as possible, including
> > stuff like hdf, jpeg2000 (via jasper) and so forth.
>
> Is it "JasPer Software License" GPL compatible?
It is BSD-like license with the special clause to protect authors against
patent holders. HDF library has BSD-like license too.
No. Japser is non-free Software.
E.G. see some of the discussion at debian:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2003/debian-wnpp-200302/msg00540.html
GIF, TIFF, PNG, JPEG libraries --- all has BSD-like licenses.
> Which GDAL/OGR drivers are GPL compatible/incompatible?
I think the only problematic drivers are the ones, based on non-free
third-party libraries. These are ECW, JPEG2000 (via Kakadu), MrSID.
Yes, the first question to ask would be which libraries are non-free.
The next question would be to see if they have fair Free Software licenses.
The GNU GPL license is a good license for GRASS because it already
requires us to check this avoiding traps that have hit GRASS hard
several times in its history.
For GDAL it might be interesting to support djvu as compared to dsdk.
http://djvu.sourceforge.net/licensing.html
Bernhard
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:28:01PM +0400, Andrey Kiselev wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:23:05PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
For those building GRASS binary distributions I would encourage you to
build in a broad a set of optional GDAL formats as possible, including
stuff like hdf, jpeg2000 (via jasper) and so forth.
Is it "JasPer Software License" GPL compatible?
It is BSD-like license with the special clause to protect authors against
patent holders. HDF library has BSD-like license too.
No. Japser is non-free Software.
E.G. see some of the discussion at debian:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2003/debian-wnpp-200302/msg00540.html
Bernhard,
Good point. I understand why JasPer has the license it does, but this
does disqualify it as truely free software. However, whether those
preparing GRASS binary releases want to include it or not would still seem
to be open.
For GDAL it might be interesting to support djvu as compared to dsdk.
http://djvu.sourceforge.net/licensing.html
My vague fear with Djvu has always been that it isn't compatible with modern
MrSID images, but from a brief review of the web page it seems that this might
not be the case.
I will speak to Andrey about implementing a Djvu driver in GDAL. Note that
work such as this that isn't funded by a client will take lower priority than
funded work, and I am basically paying for it out of my pocket.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:41:41PM -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:28:01PM +0400, Andrey Kiselev wrote:
>>On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:23:05PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
>No. Japser is non-free Software.
>E.G. see some of the discussion at debian:
>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2003/debian-wnpp-200302/msg00540.html
Good point. I understand why JasPer has the license it does, but this
does disqualify it as truely free software.
However, whether those preparing GRASS binary releases
want to include it or not would still seem to be open.
The problem with this is that they won't be able to give
the resulting binary (including Jasper) to anyone without loosing the
license to use the GNU GPL software that was used the derive the product.
(Which might not only be GRASS, but I didn't research that.)
>For GDAL it might be interesting to support djvu as compared to dsdk.
>http://djvu.sourceforge.net/licensing.html
My vague fear with Djvu has always been that it isn't compatible with modern
MrSID images, but from a brief review of the web page it seems
that this might not be the case.
I will speak to Andrey about implementing a Djvu driver in GDAL. Note that
work such as this that isn't funded by a client will take lower priority
than funded work, and I am basically paying for it out of my pocket.
This is very understandable,
it is great that you are considering it.
Bernhard
Bernhard,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 03:44:43PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
The GNU GPL license is a good license for GRASS because it already
requires us to check this avoiding traps that have hit GRASS hard
several times in its history.
For GDAL it might be interesting to support djvu as compared to dsdk.
http://djvu.sourceforge.net/licensing.html
But whether this license terms suitable for GDAL? GDAL is distributed
under MIT/X license, djvulibre is GPLed. And if GDAL will use djvulibre
it should be distributed under GPL too
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL).
Or I'm just misinterpret something in this problem?
Andrey
--
Andrey V. Kiselev
Home phone: +7 812 5274898 ICQ# 26871517
On Friday 22 August 2003 15:44, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
The GNU GPL license is a good license for GRASS because it already
requires us to check this avoiding traps that have hit GRASS hard
several times in its history.
Because of GPL, it is impossible to distribute GRASS binaries with
support for JPEG2000, DWG and other formats, even if libraries for
those formats are available with licenses which allow such distribution,
but GPL does not.
I don't see any reason to reduce GRASS usability this way (i.e. use GPL)
except FSF ideology.
I think that GPL is currently the biggest problem for GRASS and
disqualifies it as GIS (_system_), limitting its integration
and data exchange with existing nonGPL enviroments (i.e. high majority)
as well as it prevents any activities to extend GRASS functionality by
additional nonGPL modules.
Radim
Radim Blazek wrote:
Because of GPL, it is impossible to distribute GRASS binaries with support for JPEG2000, DWG and other formats, even if libraries for
those formats are available with licenses which allow such distribution,
but GPL does not.
I don't see any reason to reduce GRASS usability this way (i.e. use GPL)
except FSF ideology.
Radim,
As I understand it we can distribute GRASS with a GPL compatible build
of GDAL (ie. no GPL incompatible drivers), and then offer for download
another non-GPL compatible version of GDAL with some extended drivers that
could be installed over the existing version of GDAL for those willing
to compromise their freedom to some extent, is that right? Users who
do not redistributed GPLed software are allowed to mix in non-GPL
components.
While having two distribute a GPL grass, and a non-GPL extention module
is inconvenient (for us and the end user) it does make it very clear to
the end user what they do and don't have full freedom to modify.
Unfortunately (or not depending on your opinion), it makes it very hard
to write GRASS modules that directly depend on non-GPL components, even
if they would be strictly add-ons.
I do however appreciate the importance of not making the basic use of
GRASS depend on non-free components.
In summary, I think it we can work within the requirements of the GPL while
still offering users that want it extra non-free add-ons for improved
file import/export capabilities.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
On Monday 25 August 2003 15:44, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Radim,
As I understand it we can distribute GRASS with a GPL compatible build
of GDAL (ie. no GPL incompatible drivers), and then offer for download
another non-GPL compatible version of GDAL with some extended drivers that
could be installed over the existing version of GDAL for those willing
to compromise their freedom to some extent, is that right? Users who
do not redistributed GPLed software are allowed to mix in non-GPL
components.
Yes, this seems to be viable workaround. Absurd license, absurd solution.
We should clarify conditions for such distribution. I think that to build
- GPL compatible GDAL
- GRASS linked to GPL compatible GDAL
- GPL incompatible GDAL
and distibute all on the same medium or on the same web site sould be OK,
or not?
What about installation, is it legal if installer automaticaly installs
all components (GPL GDAL, GRASS, replace GPL GDAL by nonGPL GDAL)
in this order?
I do however appreciate the importance of not making the basic use of
GRASS depend on non-free components.
I completely agree, GRASS core must be free, preferably free and not Free,
but possibility to use non-free components is of the same importance.
In summary, I think it we can work within the requirements of the GPL while
still offering users that want it extra non-free add-ons for improved
file import/export capabilities.
Unfortunately import/export is not the only area where proprietary
applications would be desirable. For example, MrSID plugins are freely
available for ArcView, Microstaion, Mapinfo, etc., why not d.sid for GRASS?
It is not too attractive to tell people, currently using MrSID, that
they can use Free GRASS, but they have to buy 20 new hard drives for data.
Radim