Add LGPL to LICENSE.TXT because of gdal_merge.py

[schwehr]

gdal_merge.py is LGPL. We should add that license to LICENSES.txt

https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/master/gdal/swig/python/scripts/gdal_merge.py#L23 https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/blob/master/gdal/LICENSE.TXT

Any any other licenses also missing?

[rouault]

We should add that license to LICENSES.txt

I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do. I believe LICENSE.TXT is currently meant for the library, as it is displayed by "gdalinfo --license" for example. Adding the LGPL license of the utility would bring confusion. Perhaps a dedicated LICENSE_gdal_merge.TXT. @sebastic Any opinion ?

[sebastic]

The LICENSE file in the root should be for the project itself, it's perfectly fine for individual files to have a different, but compatible, license as documented at the top of those files.

Using LGPL for a utility is not very appropriate, perhaps the copyright holders can consent to relicense it under the MIT or GPL license.

The same goes for swig/python/samples/gdal_vrtmerge.py, see:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian-gis-team/gdal/-/blob/debian/3.1.2+dfsg-1/debian/copyright#L720

[rouault]

The LICENSE file in the root should be for the project itself

OK, so perhaps for clarity we should have a relatively top level paragraph with the current content stating it is for the library, and at the end a section for utilities.

Using LGPL for a utility is not very appropriate, perhaps the copyright holders can consent to relicense it under the MIT or GPL license.

I'd be fine for my parts, but someone should ask to Atlantis Scientific Inc but looking at their website, it seems to be a bit weird

[pesekon2]

What's the current state of this at the moment? Is gdal_merge.py still LGPL-licensed?

[rouault]

Is gdal_merge.py still LGPL-licensed?

yes

[pesekon2]

Is gdal_merge.py still LGPL-licensed?

yes

Thanks.

Then I also support @schwehr and @sebastic's idea to include the LGPL info somewhere in the LICENSE (or in another LICENSE for utilities). Seems like LGPL actually requires that: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-3.0-or-later.html

[schwehr]

I don't think that is the correct spdx code.

# This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
# License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
# version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

So it should be: https://spdx.org/licenses/LGPL-2.0-or-later.html