[GRASS5] why GPL

[Glynn Clements]

strobe anarkhos wrote:

> Any changes to GRASS itself would have to be LGPLed. GRASS is a
> system, not just one tool. If somebody wants to extend GRASS they
> would have to release those changes under the LGPL.

If it were LGPL'd, they wouldn't have to change it to extend it. They
just turn the executables into shared libraries and link their
proprietary code against them.

> The advantage of LGPL (or a license like it) is that people can
> release software which uses GRASS but doesn't have to use the friggin
> GPL! This software doesn't extend GRASS in the least (and can't in
> it's present monolithic state), it just uses GRASS.

Whereas, with GRASS being GPL'd, they either forego using GRASS, or
they release their code under the GPL too. The former option doesn't
harm us, the latter helps.

I consider the coercive nature of the GPL to be a good thing, in that
it provides an incentive to others to release new code under the GPL. 
The LGPL provides no such incentive; it only requires modified
versions of LGPL'd code to remain LGPL'd.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at sensei.co.uk>

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