[GRASS5] libgrass license?

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:36:38PM +0100, Radim Blazek wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 December 2003 16:08, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:30:50AM +0100, Radim Blazek wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 03 December 2003 01:51, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> > > > That said, the GPL nature of the GRASS 5 code base, and the licensing
> > > > complications that implies are part of why I haven't spent much time
> > > > updating libgrass and libgrass support in GDAL.
> > >
> > > Yes, I think that you had violated the license and so you have lost
> > > the rights to use GRASS 5.
> >
> > Why do you think he had violated it precisely?
> 
> Frank changed the license from GPL to LGPL,
> GPL: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, _sublicense_ or distribute the Program is
> void, and will automatically _terminate_ your rights under this License."

Indeed I think you are correct on this one as he publised the stuff.
However it was in some coordination with the grass5 lists
and deempted experimental,
thus I assume that he will explicitly be given another license.
He gets one from me, because I could see this as him acting under delegation
making a mistake.

However it is true, Frank, you need to correct this.
At least add a _fat_ note!

> > > We use GPL, because it attracts users
> > > and developers to use GRASS and to contribute to GRASS project ;-)
> >
> > Your are retreating to sarcsam, because your arguments were refuted
> > and you didn't have a better solution for the complicated problem.
> 
> If that what Frank has written, is not an argument for you, then 
> it realy doesn't make any sense to discuss that more.

Which writings of Frank in particular?

I can understand that the situation is difficult.
I can also understand the desire to have a simpler situation
and Frank's greater interest in dealing with code not with licenses.

I believe that it is an argument.

GDAL seems fine to be under LGPL (or another weak freedom protecting
license for that matter) because of its targeted use.

Still the problems do not go away 
if you simply use Xfree86 licenses everywhere.
There are other good arguments to use the GNU GPL 
for the functional core of GRASS.

Especially that quite some companies in the past 
took GRASS created proprietary applications on tops of it 
and did not contribute back when GRASS was Puiblic Domain.

For me those argument outweight the argument
that the GNU GPL makes it harder to link to some software
or get some benefit from proprietary extentions or applications.
We might scare some developers away, but we might gain others.

It is a tradeoff decision
and we all might come to the conclusion that LGPL will be better overall
if we get in more detailed weights for the pro and cons.

Like I said before, I believe we can find a consensus
to have an LGPL interface library without giving GRASS' capabilities away.

Bernhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20031204/63147c1a/attachment.bin