[GRASS5] putting v.in.dwg in "contrib"?

[Wolfgang Lueck]

So cant you settle this.
Put the module into a contrib directory from where it can be included
into GRASS during compelation with an additional parameter such as
--with dwg as Glynn and Helena sugested. We all use proprietary software
(well most of us exept for Bernhard) although we accept the advantages
of free software. If including the parameter during configuration is too
big a hurdle for the common user, someone could write a short script for
the configuration on different distributions witch will configure either
only free core modules or everything including proprietary modules. It
would ask the users to install all necessary libraries to forfill all
dependencies. With tools such as AptGet (Debian) or YOU (SuSE) this is
no longer a problem.
There are constantly queries by newbes that want to compile GRASS for
their latest distributions such as SuSE 8.2 or the latest Mandrake or
Red Hat distributions and run into problems as the configure script cant
find the necessary libraries. This puts people off.
If these scripts can't be hosted on the GRASS website due to liscence
problems, some one else could.

Greetings Wolfgang
 
On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 18:39, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 06:07:58PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> > On Friday 16 May 2003 05:26 pm, Helena Mitasova wrote:
> > > With all that was written by Markus and others, Bernhard do you still
> > > see a problem with keeping v.in.dgw in experimental GRASS5.1 in
> > > src.nonGPL?
> > 
> > I hope that it is clear that v.in.dwg code __IS__ under GPL!!!
> 
> Not precise enough, let me try to clarify:
> 
> GPL + extention allowing to link opendwg is not GNU GPL anymore.
> 
> Still you are correct that it is Free Software under a license
> close to the GNU GPL. It needs to link non-free software to operate though.
> So on a complete Free Software operating system 
> (e.g. official Debian GNU/Linux ("official" means non-free)) 
> it cannot work.
> 
> > The problem IS NOT in 'Open DWG' license, the problem is in GRASS license.
> > OpenDWG license allows without any fees: "You may incorporate the 
> > OpenDWG libraries into programs that are used within your organization or school, 
> > or are distributed for free to the general public via the Worldwide Web."
> > (Please read http://www.opendwg.org/membership/join.htm)
> 
> The problem indeed is within the opendwg license,
> because it is proprietory software!
> It might be closer to Free Software then other proprietary
> software, but this still is not enough.
> 
> > What is not possible is to distribute binaries, 
> > because GPL used for GRASS doesn't allow it.
> 
> Which is good, because it protect the long term freedom of GRASS.
> Relicensing GRASS to GNU LGPL is an possibility solve that legal problem,
> but not from the stratecial point of view.
> 
> I quote more from OpenDWG:
> 	You may not, however,  distribute these programs in any
> 	commercial fashion, or in conjunction with any other commercial
> 	software applications.
> 
> To be precise GRASS is a commercial Free Software software application.
> They mean something slightly different.
> 
> > Open DWG license gives more freedom to distribute v.in.dwg for free than GPL.
> 
> This is the general argument that non-free software can 
> deliver more freedom that Free Software.
> This argument is known for over a century and 
> a majority of people dealing with Free Software licenses
> (e.g. Software in the Public Interest, 
> Open Source Initiative, Free Software Foundation)
> found that the definition of Free Software is just giving more freedom.
> 
> > Put it to src.nonGPL is very confusing!!! 
> 
> Yes this is true.
> As explained above v.in.dwg is Free Software,
> but it needs non-free software to run.
> Debian puts this software in the "contrib" directory,
> because it never can be part of the official Debian GNU/Linux,
> needing packages from "non-free".
> 
> NonGPL also is confusion because I never demanded that an dxf
> library would be needed to be under GNU GPL. 
> It needs to be Free Software under a GNU GPL compatible license.
> An X11 style license would be perfectly reasonable if you 
> want to allow the including to proprietory software.
-- 
Wolfgang Lueck
Mechanised Systems & Technologies cc
Branch: Forestry / Geoinformatics

Branch Address: 
Dennerandweg 25 Dalsig
Stellenbosch 7600
South Africa

Tel.: +27 21 8864799
e-mail: wolfluck at mweb.co.za