[GRASS-user] licensing question: calling GRASS GIS modules via the grass.script API in an MIT/Apache licensed script ?

[Vaclav Petras]

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:42 AM Moritz Lennert <mlennert at club.worldonline.be>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We work with a company on a project where we use GRASS GIS to calculate
> accessibility indicators. The main output we provide is a Python script
> which calls GRASS GIS modules via the grass.script API. The company is
> willing to make this script free software, but would like to license it
> with a permissive license such as MIT or Apache.
>
> I would think that calling GRASS GIS modules in a script does not
> automatically imply the script has to be GPL, but what about the use of
> the Python API ?
>
> I would think that this case falls in the grey area described at [1] and
> have tendency to think that MIT/Apache license would be allowed.
>

Hi Moritz,

To make things more complicated: Note that if MIT is allowed, that (would)
mean(s) that proprietary is also allowed, i.e. can you license it under an
arbitrary licensing terms and conditions. So, I think you are basically
asking if you can create proprietary scripts which are using GRASS GIS
modules and also if there is a difference between a script and a software
in this context. Is doing scripting in GRASS GIS mere using of GRASS GIS or
it is making derived programs? There is general agreement that Bash scripts
can be MIT/proprietary, but is calling GRASS GIS modules the same as
calling POSIX defined tools? Depending on the answers, you can be looking
at incorporating GPL-covered software in a proprietary system [2].

But first, I would be asking for reasons for requiring MIT/Apache. Clearly,
it is not *fear* of leaking patent rights with GPLv3 because that would
rule out Apache. If the reason is keeping the option to reuse pieces of the
code in a propriety product by the company, I don't see why that would be
an issue because 1) as a copyright holder, you can decide to change
licensing at any time and 2) even if you keep GPL, you can use modified GPL
code internally without releasing it. Use of GPL software is oviously not
an issue either here. On top of that, the increasing use of SaaS and GPL
behavior there [3] makes me wonder why to even talk about this and not go
with the obviously save choice GPL >=2.

To push back a little, I would say that if somebody has the capacity to
have reasons for MIT/Apache which go beyond what I tried to describe in the
previous paragraph, I would say they have capacity to determine the
licensing options here, i.e. answer my first paragraph. This serves also as
my "I'm not a lawyer statement."

And a more practical note, in case the conclusion of all this is still a
MIT or Apache license, note that Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPL v2
(it is compatible only with v3), so it would not be possible to include the
code into GRASS GIS (which is >=2) if somebody decides to do so.

Best,
Vaclav

[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
[3] https://www.fsf.org/licensing/2007-03-29-gplv3-saas


> Does anyone have a more informed opinion ?
>
> Moritz
>
>
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
> _______________________________________________
> grass-user mailing list
> grass-user at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/attachments/20190823/d1bd2a8a/attachment.html>