[GRASS5] why GPL

[Bernhard Reiter]

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.


> 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.

> 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.

	Bernhard

-- 
Professional Service around Free Software                (intevation.net)  
The FreeGIS Project                                         (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure            (ffii.org)
FSF Europe                                            	  (fsfeurope.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20010326/cddb917b/attachment.bin