[GRASS-dev] gmath and gpde update

[Glynn Clements]

Moritz Lennert wrote:

> > I don't really see a problem with it. It's a "you do not have the
> > freedom to make this program less free" restriction, similar to the
> > restrictions imposed by the GPL.
> 
> Well, the first paragraphe of the DFSG is:
> 
> "Free Redistribution
> 
> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from 
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate 
> software distribution containing programs from several different sources."
> 
> So, forbidding to sell seems against the DFSG...

The meschach licence doesn't prohibit selling an aggregation of which
meschach is a component.

That makes the problematic clause even more pointless. You could sell
a CD containing meschach and a two-line script, on the basis that
meschach is free but the script costs $50k.

> > Essentially, it's a question of how to resolve competing freedoms, and
> > the meschach licence took a different view to the GPL. It's just a
> > different (and incompatible) sort of "free".
> 
> There seems to be a possibility of exceptions for these situations in 
> the GPL[1]:

Only the copyright holder can provide such an exemption.

The author can release their code under any licence they choose,
including e.g. GPL-but-you-can-link-against-meschach (KDE provided
such an exemption for Qt before it was available under the GPL).

But you can't provide such an exemption for anyone else's GPL code. So
you couldn't distribute a binary linked against e.g. both meschach and
readline. I don't know if this would apply on a module-by-module basis
or to GRASS as a whole. IOW, whether you can claim that GRASS is a
"mere aggregation" of its components or a single work. I suspect the
latter.

> So, we might be able to do this, but AFAICT this would need the 
> agreement of all people holding copyright over GRASS code.

Yes. Including any GPL libraries (e.g. readline).

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>