[GRASS5] v.in.dwg license problem

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Fri May 16 12:51:03 EDT 2003


On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:11:42PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:39:41PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> [...]
> > For me one point in not distributing such a module in the core
> > of GRASS is publicity and the surprise value of the core CVS contents.
> > If we keep it in the core part of the CVS version,
> > we might warn people in the top pages that there are modules
> > with other licenses they have to check each module for themselfs.
> 
> We are talking about a single module, not modules. AFAIK there are
> no plans to introduce other modules like that.

Once the rule is broken, 
we need to add such a statement at least for this module.
It is good to know that no other plans exist uptodate,
but having this statment for one module makes it easier
to ask for more and is a sign that we are not entirely committed
to Free Software.


> So identifying this code is very easy, it is not needed to check
> each module.

True.
Still the statment needs to be made for this module.
From a PR point of view the other variant is slightly better.

> > There is no problem to distribute such a module in a non-free 
> > or contrib CVS module, like Debian does.
> 
> Just a sidenote for clarification (maybe just look at the 5.1 code):
> 
> Accidential compilation of 'v.in.dwg' is de facto impossible, because:
> 
>  1. the openDWG libs have to be obtained by registration/buying the license
>    which involves user interaction
>  2. copying the openDWG libs into the system
>  3. configure GRASS 5.1 with path to these libraries
>  4. compile GRASS 5.1
> 
> If 1-3 are not done, the GRASS Makefile system simply skips 'v.in.dwg'.
> The script to ask for 
>  "v.in.dwg is linked to proprietary library.... Loose ..."
> only runs if 1-3 are done.

I know, this provides a hurdle which is good.

Note that:
1-2 could have been done in other contexts or other people
(happends often on development systems) so the developer might not 
be aware that opendwg is in the path.

If somebody else made a script and switches everything on
automatically a different person might not notice the implications
and just try 3 by half accident. Then the binary reaches somebody
and this person lost the right to use GRASS. It is a bit like
surprise, if people tend to think: Hey GRASS is Free Software.

> Personally I am open to move it to a non-free directory, but it should
> be easily reachable.

I have nothing against making it easy to find or accessible
if the warning signs are in place. We can host it in the CVS.

> Developing a free DXF/DWG lib is a nice idea, but I can't see the
> volunteers.

At least we have to point out that this is needed to 
make GRASS work nicely in the Free Software world.
We can also offer the best working alternative feasible.
Radim mentioned his attempt to use DIME, that could be a start.
-------------- 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/a2c20988/attachment.bin


More information about the grass-dev mailing list