[GRASSLIST:10801] Re: [GRASS5] FWD: [OSGeo-Discuss] Incubation Committee / Contributor Agreements]

[Thomas Adams]

Roger,

Thank you very much for the clarification. FWIW, then, I believe that 
the "free-enough for most people" concept would definitely be the wrong 
way to go for the reasons you state. A major strength of R and what 
GRASS has done over the years comes from the contributions of 
user/developers and I don't think any of us want to see this stifled.

Tom


Roger Bivand wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Thomas Adams wrote:
>
>   
>> I am not a GRASS developer at this point, but I would *like* to begin 
>> contributing at some point in the future as some time frees up for me. 
>> Personally, I prefer the 'R' model and the term "free-enough for most 
>> people" worries me. Does the R licensing fall under the "free-enough for 
>> most people" umbrella? If so, then I guess it works out OK. It indeed 
>> would be a shame to see some of the most productive developers siphoned 
>> off as Glynn suggests could happen.
>>     
>
> No, the approach adopted by the R core developers is very much that
> expressed by Glynn. The "free enough for most people" view is a user trap,
> making users remain consumers rather than encouraging users to contribute
> mutually to development, it makes the user base more passive. It also
> deters developers from contributing unless they have security that their
> effort and skill will not be abused. It's a matter of confidence within
> the broader community of users and developers, where everybody can make a
> useful contribution, not least by asking good questions. There are 
> honest differences of opinion, of course, but the R community is GPL/LGPL 
> for the core engine and the vast majority of contributed packages.
>
> Roger
>
>   
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> Laurent C. wrote:
>>     
>>> 2006/3/8, Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com 
>>> <mailto:glynn at gclements.plus.com>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>     As I see it, the main risk of allowing proprietary derivatives is a
>>>     risk of "siphoning off" developers and beta testers (aka "users") from
>>>     the free version towards a "mostly, but not quite" free version.
>>>
>>>     IMHO, the biggest risk is with versions which are "free-enough for
>>>     most people", e.g. "free for non-commercial use". OpenDWG is probably
>>>     a good example; it isn't "Free Software", but it's close enough to
>>>     significantly reduce the chances of a genuinely-free alternative being
>>>     developed.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Hello list, hello Glynn,
>>>
>>> I don't think OpenDWG is a good example because there is no free 
>>> alternative and AFAIK Open Desing Alliance hasn't fork any free 
>>> software, and there is no community around this project.
>>> *BSD OS are free for more than 10 years, and many commercial 
>>> derivatives has born. *BSD still have strong community.
>>> I don't think BSD, MIT and other permissive licences are threat for 
>>> opensource developpers and users.
>>>
>>> According to the first draft of GPLv3, it seem that gplv3 software 
>>> will be more "compatible" with other free software.
>>>
>>> Just my two cents
>>>
>>> Laurent
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>   


-- 
Thomas E Adams
National Weather Service
Ohio River Forecast Center
1901 South State Route 134
Wilmington, OH 45177

EMAIL:	thomas.adams at noaa.gov

VOICE:	937-383-0528
FAX:	937-383-0033