[GRASSweb-list]bernhard: web related_projects.html,1.22,1.23

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Thu Aug 7 06:34:05 EDT 2003

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:34:05AM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:08:40PM +0200, grass at intevation.de wrote:
> > > > Author: bernhard
> > > > 
> > > > Update of /grassrepository/web
> > > > In directory doto:/tmp/cvs-serv5364
> > > > 
> > > > Modified Files:
> > > > 	related_projects.html 
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > Added hint that lx-viewer depends on a non-free library.
> > > 
> > > A comment:
> > > 
> > > In this case the licenses of all other products should be
> > > added. Or (preferred by me), we don't mention the licenses
> > > here as they are already mentioned on the individual
> > > project pages - to reduce our page maintenance efforts.
> > 
> > My proposal is to only warn users against licenses that are non-free.
> > GRASS is a Free Software project that is why most users will
> > expect us to be aware of non-free solutions.
> > This is really has value to our readers.
> > And we also make sure that if people decide to use that software
> > they are warned. 
> > Friends don't let friends use drugs^H^H^H^H^Hproprietary software.  ;)
> Well, I am not sure if it is really our task to explain the
> external projects. For that 'www.freegis.org' exists.

Not it isn't, but in that case we should not link it.
In some situation it is very useful, because the user
is looking for solutions and is goal driven.

> We should not spend time on that, but invest more time
> in improving GRASS (write an 'installer', write an
> 'update' more like R-stats provides etc). There are many
> more important things to do. Or just make GRASS 5.1
> working on MacOSX and IRIX?

Yes I agree.
However it was a couple of minutes action
and I really consider it important.
On the strategy level Free Software looses a lot 
because potential users and developers are not properly informed.
(Just think of the damage the SCO smearcampaign did,
it would have been much more difficult if people had used GNU/Linux
instead of the missleading "Linux" for the operating system earlier.)
Anyway to leads to far.

> > Otherwise we also might need to link all the proprietary 
> > or semi-proprietary software that can do useful tasks
> > in combination with GRASS.
> Yes, installation should be simplified.

I don't understand that remark.
My argument was: Linking to usefuil applications which are proprietary 
from the GRASS pages should be an exception, 
because we don't want to link them all.

Proprietary applications do not help us to make the installation
of GRASS more simple. There are enough Free Software solutions for
this -- even on Windows.

> > If this is too much maintanence effort the alternative
> > would be to not mention non-free solutions, but
> > that also has its drawbacks.
> Why not let the users decide? If someone want to use a non-free
> solution, that's not our decision. I would prefer to give the 
> users the freedom to decide themselves.

Yes, I completely agree,
that is why it makes sense to add a warning in the rare
case that we link a proprietary solution.
Users have been warned and then can make an educated decision.

-------------- 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-web/attachments/20030807/422f6ea0/attachment.bin

More information about the grass-web mailing list