[GRASS5] why GPL

[strobe anarkhos]

At 2:39 PM +0200 3/26/01, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 07:37:36AM -0800, strobe anarkhos wrote:
>
>> You're the one missing the whole point (which I'll summarize at
>> the end of this email).
>
>I think that we do get the point.
>We are well aware of the fact, that using the GPL some people will
>be scared away. It lowers the chance of GRASS being adopted by everyone.
>On the other hand, now GRASS is proteced. In the history of GRASS,
>there were several incidents that made us feel that we need the
>stronger protection.

Protection isn't the issue, reciprocity is the issue.

> > I wanted to release MY code as LGPL so a) people can't sell my
>> code and b) other people can write useful software for it without
>> releasing it under the GPL. I do not have this freedom even though
>> I am using my OWN model. I want MORE people to use my software,
>> not less.
>
>You know the examples of X11 and BSD. Only stronger protection in
>licensing made the GNU systems as viable and popular as it is now.
>So in short: I doubt that your implications are working as you
>propose in the long term.

What about X11 and BSD?

I hardly use any GNU-ware myself. The only one I use is probably gcc.

> > A niche which is substantially smaller than GIS software because
>> it can't be used as a general GIS toolbox.
>
>Actually GRASS is quite flexible for the range of its application.

not really.

> > Look at other projects I have used which are LGPL. For example
>> GNUStep and Quesa.
>
>None of these is in real production use.
>They cannot compare to GRASS.
>GRASS has a conservative user community and therefore the
>development aims for stability.

Stability isn't the issue. GPL doesn't make code stable. Talk about a red herring.

>
>> For example one of the model classes is a vector set. Let's say I
>> want to implement a method which calculated the length of that
>> vector set and returns it. I would place that method within the
>> vector set class where *everybody* can use it for free.
>
>You can still do this.
>License your code under LGPL, but accept the decision of the GRASS
>team that the current code base will not be licensed under LGPL in
>the near future.

Or stop trying.

> > IF you see NO UTILITY WHATSOEVER in general wide-spread use of
>> GRASS where the GRASS framework remains free and grows as more
>> people add functionality to it then your point is taken. But if
>> that is your position why bother open sourcing it in the first
>> place. It's a matter of unrealized potential, something I may even
>> accept as "tremendous growth".
>
>We accept the unrealized potential as the less evil and choose
>better protection of GRASS' freedom.

like Eric Miller said, protection isn't the issue, reciprocity is the issue.

The LGPL license offers the same protection as the GPL. FSF changed the title from 'Library' to 'Lesser' for political reasons, it has nothing to do with the license verbatim.

---------------------------------------- 
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo at geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'