[GRASSLIST:2681] Re: grasslinks for grass5

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 06:28:55PM -0800, Len Coop wrote:
> I still do not see major problems with the REGIS Grasslinks 3.1 license, 
> I would be fine to see the existing license retained and
> honored - it is not a GPL, but it is free and wants to stay free
> (but not free to be incorporated into profit-making software
> without permission). 

The discussion what freedom you need for software to call it
Free Software is old and the Grasslinks 3.1 license I've found and
quoted in a previouse mail does not make it Free Software
to the standards of the FSF, Software in the Public Interest or the
Open Source Initiative.

> So companies might seek permissions (or stay
> away) but us University types should be OK.

Well might be able to use software under such a license, 
but some activities of universities might actually be considered "commercial". 
You are also hurd by the fact that GRASSLinks 3.1 could never 
be included in Distribution or be offered service for.
Both things that researchers will benefit from.

> Patricia Frontiera wrote:

> > The license/copyright issues are complicated b/c of the university
> > administration. University of California policies on copyright
> > can be found at:
> > http://itpolicy.berkeley.edu:7015/e-Berkeley.policy.html

I did not completly scan all documents behind the link as most of
them seem to be unrelated. Can you point me to s specific section
which applies to the case.

I know that the UCB as published software
under licenses that are Free Software. For example the
modified BSD license:  http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5

> > After I edited Grasslinks to version 3.1, I consulted a UCB copyright
> > administrator who determined that the joint copyright used by Grasslinks
> > 3.1 was appropriate for this software since Grasslinks was developed on
> > campus as part funded research project for the university and part
> > research project for a dissertation.  My understanding of this copyright,
> > which may be incorrect, is that anyone can use the code so long as they
> > don't try to sell it and they put the UC copyright blurb somewhere.  

The condition that you cannot use the software to make money
renders it non-free.

> > Of course, if you re-write GLinks substantially then it is no
> > longer GLinks, and that probably should be done anyway b/c the
> > code really could use improvement.
> > 
> > So, please review the UC policy statements for clarification. I'm not sure
> > what else I can do to help.  Our intention is that anyone use the
> > software, but we are bound by university policy.

If GRASSLinks is derived from GRASS as a product, then UC has to
comply with the GRASS license, otherwise their permission to use
GRASS under GPL will terminate.
If it can be viewed to not be derived it certainly is against the
spirit of GRASS' license to not have it released under a Free
Software license.

If you can convince UC to use the modified BSD license, we are fine
in both cases.

	Bernhard
-- 
Professional Service around Free Software                (intevation.net)  
The FreeGIS Project                                         (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure            (ffii.org)
FSF Europe                                            	  (fsfeurope.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/attachments/20011121/4e86c562/attachment.bin