[GRASSLIST:10812] Re: [GRASS5] FWD: [OSGeo-Discuss] Incubation Committee / Contributor Agreements]

[Roger Bivand]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Glynn Clements wrote:
> > I believe that, in most cases, releasing code under the GPL provides
> > the maximum benefit, as anyone wishing to create derivative works also
> > has to licence their version under the GPL. The more GPL'd code that
> > exists, the greater the incentive for developers to make new code
> > available under the GPL.
> > 
> > The CLA grants the foundation the right to redistribute contributed
> > code under almost any licence, including those which permit
> > proprietary derivatives (e.g. BSD and MIT licences). Such licences
> > provide significantly less incentive for developers to share their
> > additions or enhancements.
> 
> Glynn,
> 
> Well, I think this is the information we need.  If the CLA is perceived
> as a backdoor to undoing the GPL by a significant number of potential
> contributors then I think we will just have to alter the CLA to respect
> existing licensing.
> 
> For projects such as MapGuide OS that sign over all copyright to the
> foundation, the option of relicensing would still exist. For project
> like GRASS that don't sign over copyright, and more limited CLA would
> not provide any mechanism to weaken the GPL.
> 
> Note, I am not a big fan of the GPL myself, but I don't think the CLA
> ought to be positioned to undermine the GPL.
> 
> Of course, I'm not the final authority, but I think we can get the CLA
> terms reviewed if Markus and I bring your feedback to the board.
> 
> Are there are other GRASS contributors that feel the same about this as
> Glynn does?

I share Glynn's view. While I don't commit to GRASS source, insight into
the R foundation (I am an ordinary member, that is a board member), and
work with the interfaces suggests that, for the mix of contributors in
GRASS, GPL with LGPL for carefully chosen components is best. The R engine
is GPL/LGPL, and most of the 800+ contributed packages follow the same
model, including those in Bioconductor, the leading open source
bioinformatics project.

Most of the contributions are made by people who are not software
developers, but who need to develop software to do their work, whether in
companies, research institutes or higher education. There are also many
who are not from North America. The R foundation does own the copyright to
the R core engine, and as such is a different animal to OSGeo. R went GPL
ten years ago, and staying GPL has been part of its success, depending
crucially on trust in a core team of a dozen or more, who almost never
meet face to face. There has not been any debate over licencing apart from
a very few issues between GPL and LGPL to adjust the header files to suit. 
This is described in: https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/doc/COPYRIGHTS.

Of course, R is a different animal with different experience. But based in 
part on that, I agree with Glynn with regard to GRASS, and welcome Frank's 
willingness to review the draft CLA to accommodate Glynn's position.

Best wishes,

Roger

> 
> Best regards,
> 

-- 
Roger Bivand
Economic Geography Section, Department of Economics, Norwegian School of
Economics and Business Administration, Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen,
Norway. voice: +47 55 95 93 55; fax +47 55 95 95 43
e-mail: Roger.Bivand at nhh.no