[GRASS5] v.in.dwg license problem

[Helena Mitasova]

Maybe we should keep in mind that 5.1 is experimental and we keep nonGPL
code in experimental GRASS5.0 (see 5.0exp src.nonGPL)
so I don't see any problem with keeping v.in.dwg in GRASS5.1
in src.nonGPL as we have in GRASS5.0exp v.geom and other nonGPL code.
That way everybody can get it but it is not considered core GRASS
(as we have also src.contrib and src.garden).

v.in.dwg is an important program - over the past year
I got more data as dwg than as shape. And Radim is right, you just
cannot
ask the people who are so kind that they give you their (often
proprietary)
dwg data to convert to something else on regular basis although we try
to ask for other formats, but many companies just don't have time to
convert.

On the other hand Bernhard is right that as a long term strategy
v.in.dwg should not be part of the core GRASS5.2 release
and stay in the experimental CVS code until a GPL version
is written or engineers stop using dwg and it is not needed.
I too believe that mixing proprietary code
with free software does not work very well.

With all that was written by Markus and others, Bernhard do you still
see a problem with keeping v.in.dgw in experimental GRASS5.1 in
src.nonGPL?
Or are there any problems having src.nonGPL in GRASS5.1? 

Helena



Markus Neteler wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:39:41PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> [...]
> > For me one point in not distributing such a module in the core
> > of GRASS is publicity and the surprise value of the core CVS contents.
> > If we keep it in the core part of the CVS version,
> > we might warn people in the top pages that there are modules
> > with other licenses they have to check each module for themselfs.
> 
> We are talking about a single module, not modules. AFAIK there are
> no plans to introduce other modules like that.
> So identifying this code is very easy, it is not needed to check
> each module.
> 
> > There is no problem to distribute such a module in a non-free
> > or contrib CVS module, like Debian does.
> 
> Just a sidenote for clarification (maybe just look at the 5.1 code):
> 
> Accidential compilation of 'v.in.dwg' is de facto impossible, because:
> 
>  1. the openDWG libs have to be obtained by registration/buying the license
>    which involves user interaction
>  2. copying the openDWG libs into the system
>  3. configure GRASS 5.1 with path to these libraries
>  4. compile GRASS 5.1
> 
> If 1-3 are not done, the GRASS Makefile system simply skips 'v.in.dwg'.
> The script to ask for
>  "v.in.dwg is linked to proprietary library.... Loose ..."
> only runs if 1-3 are done.
> 
> Personally I am open to move it to a non-free directory, but it should
> be easily reachable.
> 
> Developing a free DXF/DWG lib is a nice idea, but I can't see the
> volunteers.
> 
> Markus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> grass5 mailing list
> grass5 at grass.itc.it
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5