[GRASS5] v.in.dwg license problem

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:54:16PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2003 05:19 pm, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> 
> OGR supports 'Oracle Spatial'. I have not find license for it, but 
> I don't think it is GPL. The same situation will be with 'Open DWG' 
> once added to OGR or any other non GPL library supported by OGR. 
> OGR/GDAL is currently used by r.in.gdal, v.in.ogr and v.out.ogr.
> So, these modules have the same problem as v.in.dwg?

Unfortunately your observation is correct that this problem
as long reaching consequences. 
The core problem situation is similiar, 
however in shifting the problems
to GDAL we are in a slightly better position.

GDAL can be build and be useful without proprietory software.
Thus any GRASS module accessing GDAL can be useful in
a complete Free Software world in the default case.
This is a good reason to keep it as core GRASS module.

> More serious, direct support for OGR (any module can directly access
> data supported by OGR) is under development. That concerns
> all modules working with vectors. The same is planned for rasters.

Yes I consider this a great step!

> Do you want to:
> 1) Forbid Frank to add non GPL libraries to GDAL/OGR?

Of course not, as I don't have any say about Frank does.
I'm mere giving arguments.

Frank also has to find a way to point people
in the right direction regarding the possible licensing problems
if GDAL is linked with proprietory software and software with strong
Free Software licenses, like the GNU GPL.

Let me add another clarifification, because you several times
claimed that I demand that all libraries have to be under GNU GPL.
There are many non GNU GPL Free Software licenses that are
compatible with the GNU GPL, like X11 style licenses. 
GRASS can of course utilise theses.
The problem arises if you link a software with a proprietory
license and a GNU GPL to that piece of software.

> 2) Forbid GRASS developers to us GDAL/OGR?

Of course not.
I'm just trying to explain consequences and strategic implications
but you seem to take all my explanations as "demands".

> 3) Move all GRASS modules out from GRASS CVS?
> Any other way to avoid possible linking GRASS modules to non GPL libraries?

As explained above that would be an generalisation that I've never made,
why would you make it?
-------------- 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/20030516/ece6b80e/attachment.bin