[GRASSLIST:1158] Re: creating a desktop GIS application using GRASS

[Radim Blazek]

On Tuesday 26 August 2003 12:15, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > The problem is that because
> > of GPL, it is impossible to create proprietary applications for GRASS.
>
> I consider this an advantages, because in GRASS' history
> each time a vendor made a proprietary application with GRASS code
> it was locked in and GRASS development stagnated.

You mean proprietary version of GRASS, I mean applications for GRASS.
I don't think that GRASS could stagnate more than it is stagnating now,
we are mostly in the state of bugfixing last few years. 
Proprietary versions don't seem to be problem for projects like Mozilla
or Open Office!

> On the other hand, if you make scripts for GRASS you might be able
> to make an application which is proprietary,
> so your statement above is only partly correct.

???!!! Application using scripts? That definitely cannot be competitive
compared with applications for proprietary GIS, tightly integrated into
the base system.

> > While for commercial GISes,
>
> (I assume you are talking about proprietary GIS).
>
> > it is possible to distribute both free
> > and proprietary applications, GPL GIS allows GPL compatible extensions
> > only.
>
> As explained above this is not correct, both is possible,
> depending if you derive your application from GRASS or build it on top
> like using GRASS commands as scripts.

As explained above, usually it is impossible to make good, copetitive application
using commands and scripts.

> > It is illusion to think, that all required extensions can be created
> > under GPL.
>
> Why that?
> In 1983 Richard Matthews Stallman called to create a complete
> operating system (which is a lot more than GRASS extensions)
> and was successful.
> Many people thought this wouldn't work, but it did.

We must think about a ratio between the work required
and the number of users, say 'code size'/'number of installations'.
This ratio is too high for higly specialized GIS extension
comparing to operating system. It seems to me that GPL is good
only for SW with that ratio under certain limit, that means to have 
enough users and contributors.

There are also other aspects, working on OS is attractive while 
most GIS applications is just routine and boring work. 
HW and SW producers are interested in free OS development,
but almost nobody having money in free GIS development.
GIS is for us something like OS for others, i.e. enviroment, starting
point. While OS is covered by exception in GPL, GIS is not.
To argue by OS under GPL is not correct, because of that exception in GPL.

> You don't know until you try.

I believe that somebody can realy waste his money and write an application 
under GPL, why not. The problem is that we need massive movement in this 
area not one exception. More important than to talk about theoretical 
possibility is to look around at the reality - no such applications. 

> > Until such applications are available (good quality,
> > localized, with commercial support) most serious GIS users cannot
> > choose GRASS as their main system.
>
> I believe that GRASS usage could be a lot higher
> and is already raising in small steps.

Very small steps, the gap between GRASS and proprietary GIS is 
bigger and bigger every day.

> What you demand is "the permission" to vender-lock users in
> and in my view that is not bringing more freedom, but less.

Not at all, what I want is to give users the freedom to use both free
and proprietary extensions for GRASS. GRASS users are not infantile 
idiots, who need to be protected by you GPL. It must be their decision
what SW they want to use, not your or our.

Radim