[Geoprisma-dev] Licensing was: MapFish-trunk in external

[Yves Moisan]

> If you say 
> you are releasing a product under BSD, then you have some obligation to 
> to insure that it has a clear license under those terms.
> 
> There are a few ways to do this.
> 
> 1) do not bring any GPL or other code that has a license that is 
> incompatible with BSD or whatever you choice to release it under.

To say the GPL is "imcompatible" with BSD is IMO not fair.  It is a
strong copyleft license, whereas the BSD isn't.  Both licenses can live
together, as evidenced by the list of compatible licenses on the fsf
site.

> 
> 2) if you want to incorporate code that is released under an 
> incompatible license that you secure a relicensed copy for inclusion in 
> the project and the this is appropriately documented in svn or with the 
> releases so there is no future ambiguity about it.
> 
> 3) if some parts of the product are separable from the main product that 
> you might include them under a different license ... but this is getting 
> muddy real fast. Now you probably have to release you product under a 
> dual license so you have something like core == (BSD or GPL), and extra 
> == (GPL only), but all this adds confusion to the users of the library 
> in terms of what I can and can not use in this situation or that situation.
> 
> 4) maybe something else I have not thought about.
> 
> If ever there was an area of a project that needs to follow the K.I.S.S. 
> rule this is one of them.
> 
> >> GPL licenses are like a virus, any thing you mix with it becomes GPL.
> >> There are some licenses that you can NOT mix with GPL because they 
> >> require actions the are GPL incompatible.
> >>
> >> If I build an GeoPrisma application for a client and he mixes it with 
> >> his code, he does not what all his code becoming GPL and then has to 
> >> release his proprietary code as GPL. So GeoPrisma needs to be GPL clean!
> > 
> > IIRC, if he uses his code "for himself" he does not have to give his
> > mods back to the community.  If your customer starts deploying or
> > vending his solution, then there's an issue.
> 
> Right, but they want to build a software as a service site, so this 
> would be problematic. And many clients look at software as a corporate 
> asset that has value that increases the value of the company because it 
> can be sold or relicensed, etc.   It is because of these reason the 
> companies want nothing to do with GPL, because it is designed to 
> prevents people from doing that. 

The GPL is designed to ensure collaboration downstream.  It says "the
sofware you got with those freedoms you will pass on with the same
freedoms", sort of.  I know the world of free web* geomatics software
isn't one of GPL, but to say that companies don't want to deal with GPL
is a rather disconcerting argument in the context of free geomatics.  

I'm going to leave the conversation at that for now.  We'll have the
opportunity to discuss that with the MapFish community, since it's the
only "thorn" in this non-GPL world ;-).

Cheers,



Yves

 

> Regardless of the reason, most coporate 
> lawyer will prevent them for using GPL'd code. So not corporate clients 
> really cuts down on the revenue stream for people like us.
> 
> >> You should not bring anything that is GPL into GeoPrisma which is under 
> >> a BSD license or it will make GeoPrisma into a GPL license.
> > 
> > Saying that would be like saying "abandon MapFish and GeoExt" which
> > makes no sense now at least in terms of our codebase.  The only thing we
> > can do is work on the MF license : maybe add an exception for GPL
> > compatible licenses ?  Remember : GeoExt has a modified BSD license, but
> > it uses ExtJS behind under the GPL *with* the explicit exception clause
> > provided by the ExtJS folks.  So if anyone were to turn a GeoExt
> > application into some proprietary app, there would be a violation of
> > ExtJS's exception clause, I believe.  We'll see with the MapFish PSC in
> > January.
> 
> You have to get these guys to allow you to use it under a BSD or maybe a 
> modified BSD if you if you want to relicense your code or (and I hope 
> you don't) relicense to GPL.
> 
> Whatever you decide from a project point of view is fine, but just be 
> clear in the communication and implementation of licensing. Then others 
> can decide based on functionality, licensing, and whatever else floats 
> their boats.
> 
> I'm +1 for BSD, -1 for GPL, willing to look at other choices.
> 
> This is not to start a licensing war, I just can't use GPL for most of 
> my clients. If you can live with GPL it is great for some people.
> 
> Cheers,
>    -Steve
> 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Yves
> > 
> > 
> >> One of the OpenSource selection criteria that my clients put on me is NO 
> >> GPL code.
> >>
> >> That means if someone has a cool GPL thingy that you would like to have 
> >> in GeoPrisma then you need to recreate the functionality in clean code 
> >> that does not use the GPL'd code.
> >>
> >> This unfortunately means that you can not use mapfish code.
> >>
> >> There is one possible angle to this that might let you get by that is it 
> >> might be possible to convince people that the client JS code can be GPL 
> >> as long as the service code is BSD. But it muddies the water and makes 
> >> it harder to convince people to use the product. And you run the risk of 
> >> something innocently polluting you server side code with something that 
> >> is GPL and came along with some client-side piece. I am not a lawyer.
> >>
> >> If you need help or another opinion Frank W. is probably someone that 
> >> understands this pretty well.
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >>    -Steve
> >>
> > 
> > 
>