[GRASSweb-list]bernhard: web related_projects.html,1.22,1.23
neteler at itc.it
Thu Aug 7 06:49:13 EDT 2003
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:34:05PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> 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.
But it is incomplete. Either rate all links or no link.
I suggest not to rate as this is not the goal of the GRASS
> 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.
Sorry: I wanted to point out that there are much more important
things to do than spending time on rating the licenses of
external links (remember the "polish the GRASS source code header
file inclusion" issue we once talked about).
First we should make GRASS easiy to use, then doing such extra
> 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.
But "lx-viewer" is not proprietary. It is "GPL with exception".
However, this discussion is not related to a GRASS web page (IMHO).
> 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.
[this is off-topic: how to look at DXF/DWG data? Except "lx-viewer"
there is *nothing* working. There are not yet always Free Software
solutions available, unfortunately.]
> > > 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.
Again, "lx-viewer" is not proprietary. But thinking more generally,
you would have to check all licenses of all linked software
packages to make useful recommendations to the web users.
> Users have been warned and then can make an educated decision.
They can just read the related web pages were the licenses are
also stated. Let us keep the GRASS site concentrating on GRASS.
Educating the users about external projects is not our task
(FSF can do that, FreeGIS, OSI, ...).
Well, enough said :-)
More information about the grass-web