[GRASS5] why GPL

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 12:36:35AM -0800, strobe anarkhos wrote:
> At 8:34 AM -0800 3/22/01, Eric G. Miller wrote:

> >And why exactly should we write code and give it away under a license
> >that allows anyone to appropriate for their profit without returning
> >anything to the GRASS community?  I find this proposal eminently
> >reasonable and I will *not* relicense any code I write under any weak
> >license except for the purpose of providing import/export facilities
> >(i.e. GRASS I/O routines).
> 
> Your code is just as protected under the LGPL, and people use
> GRASS to profit anyway, 

This is not true, as I explained LGPL is 
"Lesser GPL" and does protect the freedom to the software less.


> Nobody can take your code and sell it, it's available to
> everybody. The problem with the GPL is it isn't available to
> everybody and it will prevent it from becoming widely used.
> Instead it will be stuck as a nice stand-alone app instead of a
> general tool. I don't have any plans to sell GRASStep or any
> project branching from that work, but I would like to LGPL license
> it in case somebody wants to write a new tool for it under their
> own license. 

Well you can LGPL it of course. It is your code. :)

> The LGPL is not 'weak', I think you should try to be more open minded.

It is "weaker" then the GNU GPL!

There are some situations when using a LGPL has advantages, but GRASS
is not such a situation IMO. 

	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/20010326/6bdc1b0d/attachment.bin