[GRASS5] v.in.dwg license problem

[Radim Blazek]

On Tuesday 13 May 2003 07:25 pm, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> Noticed that v.in.dwg from GRASS 5.1
> (http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass51/vector/v.in.dwg/)
> uses the proprietory library opendwg.
> As I believe that it also needs the GRASS libraries which
> are under GNU GPL, this means that v.in.dwg has a severe license problem.

Why? Which paragraph of GPL exactly is violated by v.in.dwg SOURCE
CODE distribution.

> I see no viable alternative than to remove the current v.in.dwg
> and work on a replacement based on a Free Software license
> (compatable with GRASS' license).
> DIME or dxflib might be a starting point for development.

OpenDWG was not choosen by chance. 
DIME: C++ (not welcome in GRASS)
      DXF only (no DWG)
      versions 10-14 guaranteed only (missing 2000 and 2002)
dxflib: C++
        DXF only 
        "It's at the moment very simple ..." (from home page)

> We should remove v.in.dwg because nobody can distribute binaries
> and if somebody did, this person would violate the license of GRASS
> which mean he strictly would loose the right to use GRASS.

What is the problem? Just do not ditribute v.in.dwg binaries!
OpenDWG library is not distributed with GRASS. Everybody who
want to compile v.in.dwg must download OpenDWG library and 
explicitly enable v.in.dwg compilation, so he knows about OpenDWG
license and cannot distribute v.in.dwg binaries just by accident.

As copyright holder, I will cover v.in.dwg by GPL with exception 
to link it to proprietary libraries. Once we have some 
more reasonable license for GRASS libraries, this will allow
to sell v.in.dwg in binary form for those having proper license 
from OpenDWG (commercial associate membership etc.)

> It might hurt in the moment, especially if v.in.dxf works nicely,

What do you mean? v.in.dxf DOES NOT work nicely. It supports 
DXF only up to version 9 or 10! If you realy want to exchange
data with ACAD users (there are many) you need some proprietary SW 
(or OpenDWG convertor for Windows ;), to convert DWG/DXF files
you have got, to some very old DXF version to enable v.in.dxf import.

> but if we don't pay attention to GRASS' freedom, we'll
> pay a enourmously higher bill in the long run hurting us plenty.

Can you concretize these bills?

> Another possiblity apart from using DIME, dxflib or develop
> a new library would be to lobby
> the opendwg consortium http://www.opendwg.org/ to release
> opendwg under a reasonable Free Software license (X11 Style or GNU
> LGP come to mind). To do this successfully is probably hard.
>
> I don't consider relicensing GRASS' core libraries under a more relaxing
> license an option. 

That is more general question. I am more and more convinced, that 
GRASS may never be widely accepted (I mean public administration and
enterprise not universities and consultancy), until it is possible
to sell proprietary additions for GRASS. There is a need of applications 
which CANNOT be developed under GPL. I mean applications for smaller number
of users, limited either by specific problem or local requirements.
For example, to use some GIS related applications, local law requires 
SW certified by authority. Certification is expensive and no one 
can go through this process, pay all expenses and then release the code
under GPL. What model do you have for this situation?

What I would like to see for GRASS libraries is a license, which allows to 
to link proprietary applications to these (not modified) libraries, without
necessity to release the code under GPL, but requires to publish 
sources for possibly modified GRASS libraries. I think that best would be 
to release GRASS libraries under GPL "plus an exception permitting linking 
the library with anything"
( from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#PortProgramToGL )

This way everybody can sell added value, but cannot "steal" GRASS code.

> We might produce a stand alone application
> that only uses grasslibs to at least simply read and write vector files
> using the proprietory opendwg libraries, but it would be a major pain
> in the neck. GNU/Linux distributors and commercial service provider
> will not be able to fully utilise and distribute this sort of dwg support.

If they (distributors) don't like v.in.dwg they can contribute some equivalent
replacement to GRASS project. 
I would expect from them something like: "As OpenDWG is not GPL we have developed
new library supporting DWG and DXF up to AutoCAD 2002. A new module v.in.dwg2
was contributed to CVS. As a consequence we suggest to remove v.in.dwg"
Instead I read: "You have developed something we cannot sell. Get rid of it
and do something better."

> A good library for DWG is the only hope of the Free Software community.
>
> 	Bernhard

Note that Lx-Viewer (DWG/DXF viewer based on OpenDWG libraries)
is in similar situation (http://lx-viewer.sourceforge.net/faq.php).


Radim