On 31 October 2017 at 15:09, Stadin, Benjamin < benjamin.sta...@heidelberg-mobil.com> wrote:
> > I think there is a real need for such concept, but in my opinion there > needs to be a default model and algorithms in order to be relevant. > I know Pyxis has a pile of patents in this area: https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&tbm=pts&source=hp&q=Pyxis+innovation And while OGC members are (AFAIK) required to license/not enforce patents *directly* relating to specs <http://www.opengeospatial.org/about/ipr>, this spec specifically isn't an implementation... > *As with any spatial reference, and especially an approach that is early > in adoption, intellectual property rights pertaining to various methods of > creating and using DGGS should be expected. For example, there exist > multiple patents for indexing DGGS, and the implementers of this Abstract > Specification should make themselves aware of these patents.Attention is > drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be > the subject of patent rights. * <cynic> Maybe that's one reason why? </cynic> Rob :)
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
