[GRASS5] Proprietory additions for GRASS?

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:50:52AM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:

> > 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. 

I'm convinced that this would be the wrong way.

Adoption might be slower, but the effect might be much higher
if we continue to protect our Freedoms.

> There is a need of applications 
> which CANNOT be developed under GPL. 

I don't believe this statement.
It might be harder for some cases then for others,
but there is no principal problems in developing all
applications under the GNU GPL or a similiar protecting license.

> 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?

Free Software has been writen for all these cases already.
It usually means that there are groups that are interested
in using this software in this situation. They are ready to invest then.

> 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 )

That would be the GNU LGPL.b
There are some strategic arguments in favour 
of trying to relicense libraries to access the GRASS dataformats
under a more permissive license (ala the GNU LGPL).
In principle that decision was already half made.

I'm opposed to relicense the other libraries though
and I also believe that we would have a hard time doing this 
without rewriting them from scratch.

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

They could "steal" it in my eyes.
What you call "added value" is "substracted freedom" to me.
And they "steal" this. The money earned with that solution
would be based on the GRASS without giving back.
GRASS' history shows that this always resulted in split efforts
and had hurt common GRASS efforts.

> > 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."

Yeah, I happen to be a distributor 
(though we don't make profit on the FreeGIS CD.)
but my interest in this case is long term availability of GRASS
and its capabilities as Free Software. I've pursued that goal
in other Free Software projects I'm participating, so that claim is unfounded.

Not being able to use all of GRASS' capabilities commercially
will only hurt GRASS as it would hurt all other Free Software projects.

Like I said, we can make an application separate from core GRASS
which utilises opendwg but it would be a clutch.
It might be a useful clutch, which would also decrease the motivation
to build a completely free solution. It has to be clearly pointed out.
That a completely free solution is more desireable.

> > A good library for DWG is the only hope of the Free Software community.
> 
> Note that Lx-Viewer (DWG/DXF viewer based on OpenDWG libraries)
> is in similar situation (http://lx-viewer.sourceforge.net/faq.php).

Known to me, haven't you seen the FreeGIS.org entry?
Only after lobbying from the FreeGIS-Team (mainly Jan-Oliver)
they solved that licensing problem and put up clarifying statements. 
Before that lx-viewer had the same license trap that v.in.dwg has now.

	Bernhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20030514/1f73ced1/attachment.bin