License needed!

[David Mandel]

On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> 
> I think we met at the FSF booth (at the Atlanta Linux Showcase). 
> Hi David.
Hi Bernhard.  I suspected that this was you, but I wasn't sure. 
It is always fun to meet someone in person as well as on the net.
> 
> > Hence, I suggest putting GRASS under a freer license like GPL or LGPL.
> The GPL has many advantages for the LGPL.
> The LGPL (Lesser Public License) IMO should not be choosen.
> The former name (Library Public License) suggested this license for 
> libraries, but this was a misunderstanding. Libraries also should use
> the GPL. 

I think you are right on this as well.  I get a bit confused on this
as I haven't actually read the license statements in a while.  I like
the GPL very much.  Libraries used to be a big issue with the GPL, but
maybe they have worked this out.  A GRASS license should allow people
to write proprietary software with calls to the GRASS libraries.
Maybe the GPL does this.  What license protects things like the C and 
math libraries in Linux?  

> 
> 
> A sidenote to your other post:
> You are right, anybody can claim ownership and copyright
> over a public domain software done by a US Governmental organisation.
> (You just have to make minor changes to it.)

Yes.  I have seen it done many times.  In fact, I'm currently trying to
liberate a package that suffered this fate.  If my efforts fail, I will
have to go back to the last public version and start working with it.
This will require a lot more time and effort on my part.

> 
> This also rules out the possibilty of putting it under an BSD license,
> when it was done by the US Army, because they could not claim
> copyright. :)

In a way this is true and I know it is; but I have always gotten away
with slipping in a statement about crediting proper authorship and 
disclaiming libility.  I suspect no one is actually bound by this, but
most people will respect such a statement.

> 
> For GRASS, because Baylor and Markus and others did a lot of work on
> it, they can claim ownership and license GRASS 5.0 under GPL!
> 

YES, that was my point.  There shouldn't be any problem adding a GPL to
GRASS 5.0.  Anyone who doesn't like it, is free to go back and start
with a pre GPLed version.

And along these lines, Baylor and Markus should use the GPL or sometime
very close to the GPL.  We don't want any of these stupid not
quite free community source licenses.  Either it is FREE (OpenSource)
or it isn't; and I don't have any interest in a Non-Open GRASS.

                                          Sincerely,
                                          David Mandel
                                          Chief Activist
                                          Portland Linux/Unix Group
                                          1440 NE 59th
                                          Portland, Oregon 97213

  ======================================================================
  David Mandel - Linux Evangelist                Avalon Technology Group
  VP - Training & Software Development               0607 SW Idaho St.
  (503) 246-3630 Voice                            Portland, Oregon 97201
  (503) 246-3124 Fax                          http://www.avalongroup.net
       Linux&Dual Boot Systems * Linux Networking * Linux Training
  ======================================================================