[GRASSLIST:1194] Re: creating a desktop GIS application using GRASS

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 September 2003 13:09, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > It is possible to make commercial Free Software applications
> > which will allow us to actually build a competitive advantage over
> > proprietary commercial offerings.
> 
> Possible yes, but in certain situations much more difficult than to make 
> proprietary application. You are still talking about possibility and 
> I am still waiting for examples (specialized extension for GRASS).

I've been giving examples from other successful Free Software projects
to show that it is possible in principle with Free Software,
which you have denied before.

I also have examples for GIS in other areas.
I'd probably have to look more to see if there are examples for GRASS.

But even if there are non, it does not prove your point.
There can be several reasons why this is not the case.
I have given some of them in my last email.
Im my eyes they are a lot more important.

> > > We must think about a ratio between the work required
> > > and the number of users, say 'code size'/'number of installations'.
> >
> > It is an interesting argument.
> > The GNU example shows that you can start with a high ratio and lower it
> > over time. The copyleft licenses helped to accelerate the process.
> 
> You can lower the ratio either by reducing code size, or increasing
> number of installations. Code size is obviously fixed and 
> number of users is always limited for specialized application.

When an application is specialized a party is always willing
to spend more effort and money on it in principle.

> > GIS itself is a broad subject so GRASS has the potential of a higher
> > number of installations.
> 
> GRASS certainly yes, and I am working on GRASS because I believe that 
> it is possible to make free GIS. Unfortunately, I realised too late,
> that GIS without all required extensions cannot be widely accepted.

Then those extensions are not that specialised
and are needed to be Free Software to keep the strategic advantages.

> > As for specialised applications with a low number of installations
> > there are also example in other Free Software areas that this can be done
> > without being proprietary. Especially because if the needs are special
> > the companies have the tendency to put more money into the solution.
> > The two most prominent examples are the GNATS (GNU ADA compiler) and
> > Cygnus.
> 
> ???!!! Compiler and standard OS tools as example of specialized applications?
> Both are coverd by exception in GPL. 

They are not.
ADA is not a widespread language and a compiler does not come
with an operating system.

Cygnus was leading in the embedded world, which has very specialisted areas.

> Give me examples of GRASS applications.

Repeating the question does not invalidate my points.
It is nice to see you go back to the non-general argument, though.

> > > I believe that somebody can realy waste his money and write an
> > > application under GPL, why not.
> >
> > There are many situations and examples for this
> > where this is not a waste of money.
> 
> Give examples (GIS, GRASS).

GIS:
	Thuban->Greater.

For GRASS see my answers to the same questions above.

> > > 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.
> >
> > You mean no Free Software applications for GRASS?
> 
> Exactly, but that does not exclude to have free applications as well.
> If it is possible to make free application why not, but if it is not possible,
> why people could not buy it. Is it better, if they have to use proprietary GIS
> + proprietary extension?

I must admit I do not fully understand that paragraph.
It is possible to buy Free Software.

> > > Not at all, what I want is to give users the freedom to use both free
> > > and proprietary extensions for GRASS.
> >
> > In principle that is a goal worth debating,
> > however I don't see how we can do this with the current GRASS technology
> > without giving away our "crown jewels".
> 
> What are "crown jewels"? 

60% of the code, including the access functions that have analytic capabilities.

> Most functionality is in modules and modules
> don't need to be relicensed (except permission to link with non GPL
> libraries - DWG, JPEG2000, Oracle ...).

They need to be relicensed, because adding an exception is relicensing.
And those modules link with the other parts, 
thus you need to relicense almost everything.

	Bernhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/attachments/20030911/b5c410c8/attachment.bin