[GRASSLIST:1255] Re: creating a desktop GIS application using GRASS

[Bill Dickinson Jr]

Bernhard:

Your points are well taken - thanks. ;-)  I will be the first to 
admit that I am not an expert in any of this, so it is good for me to 
hear what people with much more investment in the project think. I 
was trying to kill two birds with the same stone with the idea of a 
bundled cd-rom that included GRASS, but I am willing to believe that 
it would work better separated.

Of course, this is all rather speculative right now as I don't even 
have the first research grant money yet. ;-)  I'll know by the 
beginning of November and then, assuming I actually get the grant, 
then this topic becomes a little less speculative. And it is me 
personally pushing the GRASS angle inside my company, which is much 
more interested in developing for ESRI, ENVI, and IDRISI since there 
is already a market for such a product.

I'm just hoping to keep GRASS in the picture somehow in the long run. ;-)

Bill

>Bill,
>
>first you have to clearly distinquish
>between proprietary and Free Software.
>Next we can think of the commercial models
>and the need for it as orthogonal to that thoughts.
>
>Some of your arguments mix both dimensions
>and assume that there is no thinkable commercial success
>without being proprietary in the software.
>This is the point where I strongly disagree
>and expressed that disagreement in my last emails.
>
>Let me add I do believe that good professional work
>is providing value and can be done commercially and competitive.
>To make it very brief: Good work should pay.
>So yes, if you make a good piece of software,
>it is okay to try and earn money with it.
>
>But there are many ways to try to do this.
>So I believe you should separate your ideas
>of having a supported, easy to install GRASS CD,
>from the poprietary software you want to write for image analysis.
>
>The former can easily done with branding and keeping GRASS
>and the packaging completely Free Software.
>E.G. like Red Hat does it.
>
>The for the latter the question is
>for what your customers are really willing to play.
>As long as you don't get a patent on your ideas
>(which is against the scientific spirit in some ways)
>an implementation will not be save against somebody else redoing it anyway.
>So my guess is that your customers would really pay for your expertise.
>If you can make a model to make them pay for the services
>that you perform with your special implementation,
>there would be no need to keep the implementation proprietary.
>
>On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:28:58AM -0400, Bill Dickinson Jr wrote:
>>  Seriously, though, it would be absolutely wrong to profit off of
>>  other peoples work and I certainly don't want to imply that this is
>>  what I want to do. What I would like to do is help create an
>>  environment where GRASS is more readily available to a wider audience
>>  and is easier for new users to get involved with. Debate is certainly
>>  worthwhile on the topic, but I also believe that there has to be some
>>  action to see just where you can take things - hence my pushes for a
>>  "commercial product" (granted, possibly not the best term) using GRASS.
>>
>>  We might be discussing a very fine difference of view about my
>>  proposed cd-rom, but it is definitely something I want open to
>>  discussion as I would hate to come crosswise of the GRASS community.
>>  Currently, my view is that my proprietary piece would be the unique
>>  analysis process of the remotely sensed data - something that is
>>  unique to our researchers and could not be argued as our proprietary
>  > property. I agree that GRASS itself could not be sold as proprietary,
>  > but our piece could be and we have the right to attempt to do so.
>  >
>  > The question becomes how does one attempt to sell a GRASS module and,
>>  I guess as well, is it even right to do so.
>
>You mean to sell the license to use that module.
>
>Some GRASS modules can actually be implemented
>without linking to GRASS libraries.
>Some cannot. It will depend on the technical details
>of the add-on your are planning.
>
>>  In an ideal world, my company would target any commercial products at
>>  the big players (ESRI, ENVI, IDRISI) while also funding development
>>  on open-source initiatives (GRASS). We may be able to work something
>>  out along these lines in the end as NASA is favorable to open-source
>>  initiatives, but I know my company would not spend any of their own
>>  money on such a thing.
>
>Not even when customers would demand it?
>I've seen clients demanding Free Software
>and I believe that demand will raise.
>
>>  Which raises the question in my mind as to what people's vision is
>>  for GRASS. Do you want to see the project grow and become more
>>  respected as a development environment, or is it strictly a nifty
>>  little project to work on to give a small segment of GIS
>>  professionals an alternative option to the commercial GIS products?
>
>I believe GRASS will grow and become a commercial GIS alternative.
>In Germany (and other countries) you can already buy commercial GRASS support
>from a few companies.
>
>The question of GRASS as development platform is not fully decided yet.
>As Radim pointed out, it would be fine if we could make it easier
>to access GRASS internal database, but there are technical problems
>to get there soon.
>
>>  I believe open-source development has a lot of strengths and is a more
>>  noble effort then the mercenary commercial practices of big business,
>>  but I also believe the reality is that for a development effort to be
>>  anything more then "nifty" it has to make it in the real world as  well.
>
>There are many commercial aspects of Free Software
>that make it a better mid and long term match for software producers
>and users. The concept itself will grow in all software areas over time,
>because of this general business advantages.
>
>>  By "real world" I mean GRASS needs to show that it can compete, on a
>>  real level, with ESRI and the others in creating useful GIS
>>  applications in an efficient manner. I don't think GRASS is there yet
>>  for all it can do, and some of what it can do it does better then
>>  ESRI. As distasteful as it may be to some people, the move towards
>>  solid commercial products is one way to get to that goal.
>
>If commercial means proprietary here,
>it would have major disadvantages to abandon the mid term
>financial prospects of the Free Software concept.
>
>>  We have seen the same movement in the primary open-source example -
>>  Linux. From a truly free, openly available operating system, we have
>>  seen Linux become viable commercial products distributed as many
>>  different flavors.
>
>Yes and most commercial GNU/Linux products (e.g. RedHat)
>are basically still Free Software.
>
>>  Why couldn't GRASS follow the same progression?
>
>It will, this is why it is important to be so clear about
>what will or will not be Free Software in such a product.
>
>	Bernhard
>
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Attachment converted: gisdev:Untitled 1 (????/----) (001461AA)


-- 

Bill Dickinson
GIS Specialist
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Environmental & Safety Branch, Code 250
wdickins at pop700.gsfc.nasa.gov