[Openicc] Open Source compatible AdobeRGB profile

[Hubert Figuiere]

Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:
> Graeme pointed allready the mathematical side for AdobeRGB out, which is 
> very simple. Good naming would be a requirement to create a substitude.

I was thinking of using JPEG to actually enclose the profile data. Since
embedding the profile in an image is permitted, we would make these JPEG
redistributable, no strings attached.  That's called a loophole. Off
course, IANAL.

>> First off all having two different license depending on who download
>> does not make it.
> 
> Why are these profiles not compatible with open source software? The 
> profiles are based on open standards. They can be used without problems 
> in open source and binary only applications.
> 
> Dual licensing is common practise for many open source projects.

This is not Dual Licensing. Dual Licensing is non discriminatory. This
one is, as you have to use one OR the other depending on who you are:
End user or distributor.
Dual Licensing is often not recommended and usually used to address
license compatibility issues.

>> Second, the End-User licence
>> <http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/iccprofiles/icc_eula_unix_end.html>
>> has in paragraph 2 the following restriction:
>>
>>> No other distribution of the Software is allowed; including, without 
>>> limitation, distribution of the Software when incorporated into or 
>>> bundled with any application software.
>> Which means that one can not distribution the ICC with an application.
> 
> From a technical point of view, I would not recommend this.
> Even Adobe had changed they're profiles in the past, with the effect that 
> sometimes applications have trouble to identify profiles. In the end 
> unnecessary conversions between the same colour space may occure.
> It is allways better to have standard profiles installed in a respected 
> place and the software can expect the colour space is available.

The problem is not whether it is is good or not. The problem is
redistribution. Open Source software is meant to be redistributed by
whoever want to do so. End-user, software developer, ISV, etc. This
"End-User" license clearly prevent the user from redistributing.

>> Third, the "distribution" license:
>>
>>> 3. DISTRIBUTION. If you choose to distribute the Software, you do so
>>> with the understanding that you agree to defend, indemnify, and hold
>>> harmless Adobe against any losses, damages, or costs arising from any
>>> claims, lawsuits, or other legal actions arising out of such
>>> distribution, including, without limitation, product liability and
>>> other claims by consumers and your failure to comply with this
>>> Section 3. If you distribute the Software on a standalone or bundled
>>> basis, you will do so by first obtaining the agreement of the end
>>> user under the terms of either the Adobe End User License Agreement
>>> ("Adobe EULA"), attached as Exhibit B, or your own license agreement
>>> which (a) complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
>>> (b) effectively disclaims all warranties and conditions, express or
>>> implied, on behalf of Adobe; (c) effectively excludes all liability
>>> for damages on behalf of Adobe; (d) substantially states that any
>>> provisions that differ from this Agreement are offered by you alone
>>> and not Adobe; and (e) substantially states that the Software is
>>> available from you or Adobe and informs licensees how to obtain it in
>>> a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for
>>> software exchange. Any distributed Software will include the Adobe
>>> copyright notices as included in the Software provided to you by
>>> Adobe.
>> Which clearly restrict distribution in the case mentionned above. That
>> means that an application that is licensed under an open source still
>> cannot distribute the color profile because of the above restriction.
> 
> Ok, the above clause is Adobe centric and thus maybe a bit irritating. 
> Nethertheless any open source license comes with a disclaimer. 
> Even with a BSD license you have to fullfill the terms.
> On the other hand, GPL is not the easiest license in regards of 
> compatibility.

That is all the problem. Redistributing some color profiles part of an
open source project should not make said project liable on behalf of the
originator. Open Source software is often distributed without warranty
or liability. The GPL is a good example of said warranty, but is not the
only one.

> 
>> I was wondering if any effort was done in that area?
> 
> Can you make suggestions to better accept profile packages with 
> propriarity licenses?

That said license be changed to have the following clause:

1/ disclaimer of liability. Files are provided as-is without warranty.

2/ copyright retaining: files are copyrighted by the copyright holder.

3/ free redistribution: files can be freely redistributed as long as
said copyright is kept. They should be kept *Verbatim*, or the profile
has to be changed (to make sure that we still have correct profile,
because this is the whole purpose of the profile redistribution.

This IMHO does not cause a problem for GPL software because it is not
code, it can be redistributed, it can be replaced with something else
(other profiles), etc. and it fit the need to have *genuine* color profiles.

Off course IANAL.


Hub