[GRASSLIST:1192] Re: creating a desktop GIS application using GRASS

[Radim Blazek]

On Wednesday 10 September 2003 13:50, Greg Ford wrote:
> Hi all,
> I imagine that many GRASS programmers have contributed their time
> for free over the years - with the confidence that the GPL would protect
> their work from being exploited by someone making a proprietary
> product from their code.  Perhaps GRASS could be converted to LGPL,
> but you would need the agreement of every programmer who has
> contributed code (or documentation?) to the project.

Yes, I know and I understand that some contributors want to use GPL and 
it must be fully respected as all contributions already done under GPL.
But most contributions were done in modules and not in libraries
and I think that it is enough to relicense only few core liraries
(lib/gis, lib/vector, lib/db) to give access to data and core routines.

> I think GRASS follows the Unix model of "many small applications that
> each do one thing and do it well". 

That is true, except "... and do it well" and it is OK, but there are
situations when it is not enough (interactive tasks).

> The strength of opensource projects is that they can potentially
> marshall much larger development teams than commercial projects!
> GRASS has the whole Internet.

GRASS yes, extensions no.

> But then commercial GIS is very expensive compared to GRASS,
> so any organisation (local or regional government agencies?)
> needing multiple licences of a specialised GIS tool
> may find it cheaper to add the functionality to GRASS than to
> purchase from a commercial supplier.
>
> As Linux enters the mainstream - there will be greater
> acceptance of all open source - and more organisations
> will realise (as IBM has) that they can benefit from investing
> development resources into open source projects.
> If the option is to invest $1M into licence fees or to spend
> $1M adding value to an OpenSource project - you can
> be sure the GNU will protect your investment. And you
> don't have to pay an upgrade fee 2 years later.
>
> I have been paid to write GPL based applications on at least two
> occasions. I found clients who needed the extra functionality that
> I could provide, the GPL was not a problem for them and they
> were prepared to pay me for the work.  I got both the money
> and the satisfaction of contributing my work to the open source
> community.

Say that proprietary GIS costs 2000, GRASS 0, application development
10000 (both proprietary or free) and 1 license for proprietary application
costs 1000. So you can:
1) take GRASS and pay somebody to develop free application:
   0 + 10000 = 10000 and you have to wait few monts 
2) buy immediately proprietary GIS + application:
   2000 + 1000 = 3000 without delay

Of course, you can try to find others and divide the costs, but
it is not always so easy, as users' needs are not harmonised in time,
and certainly it is not practice.

My suggestion is to enable
3) take GRASS and buy proprietary application:
   0 + 1000 = 1000 without delay

This would also bring more _developers_ to GRASS, because it is impossible 
to sell applications for such shit.

> > Not at all, what I want is to give users the freedom to use both free
> > and proprietary extensions for GRASS.
>
> But there are already commercial applications for those who prefer to
> buy commercial applications!

But why they should pay 3000 if they could pay only 1000?

> > 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.
>
> But (infantile or not) both users and developers are protected by the GPL
> Developers are protected by having their contribution protected from
> exploitation, and users are protected from becoming locked into using
> software over which they have no control.  That's the beauty of the GPL
> and I like it.

Or they may be also locked in the proprietary GIS, because the applications 
they need  are not available for GRASS. 

Radim