License needed!

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 07:48:19AM -0700, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Markus Neteler wrote:

> > in *my* opinion it would be interesting to check if GRASS could be
> > published unter "Gnu public licence" (GPL). But it is not my decision. 
Whos is it?

> > suggest that you *all* tell us about your opinion. 
I received several personal emails about it in favour for free software.
Please note that I explained the situation in more detail in the two
mails, I referenced:

http://earth.uni-muenster.de/~eicksch/GRASS-Help/msg02105.html
http://earth.uni-muenster.de/~eicksch/GRASS-Help/msg02195.html


> Markus, et al.:

>   I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- and this is the first
> I've read about this issue. Off the top of my head, and without knowing what
> has been discussed before, I agree with the idea that GRASS needs solid
> protection. More protection than that provided by a copyright.

There only two possiblities: copyright a piece of work or release it as
public domain.  The former allows you to state the licence under which
it can be used and gives you the possibility to protect it.

You can't do better than that. And now it is a question of the license.

>   I had the impression that GRASS was distributed under the GPL, but that
> this license had some subtle loopholes which were being exploited by
> commercial interests. It is in the best interests of all of us users and
> developers that GRASS and its source code remain open and readily available.

GRASS was never distributed under GPL or any other real license as far a
I am aware of it.  It once came as public domain, which means, it wasn't
copyrighted and unprotected. That lead to the abuse and locking up of
source code people are generally referring to in the case of GRASS.


>   Because I live in the midst of the Silicon Forest here in the upper, left
> corner of the US, I know that there is a large collection of moss-covered,
> high-tech, intellectual property rights attorneys who are running around
> chasing after new software. If it's in the groups' interest -- and with the
> permission of the powers-that-be -- I can put out some feelers and see if we
> can get some pro bono opinions from lawyers in the know.

I cannot see how that would help. Please read my old articles about that.
The GNU General Public License (GPL) has been contructed by lawyers
for the free software foundation. It is in its second version and the
most proven free software license out there. I am not aware of any loophole.
It is also recognised as the free software license giving most
protection. 

	Bernhard
-- 
Research Assistant, Geog Dept UM-Milwaukee, USA.    (www.uwm.edu/~bernhard)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure              (ffii.org)
Intevation GmbH 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 288 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/attachments/19991010/8bb27761/attachment.bin