[Incubator] Committee Launch and Initial Meeting
Markus Neteler
neteler.osgeo at gmail.com
Wed Mar 8 16:38:42 EST 2006
On 3/8/06, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:
...
> As I see it our key action item is to have collected feedback from the
> developers of our respective projects on the draft contributor agreements.
>
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Contributor_Agreement
>
> Markus already has some substantial feedback from the GRASS community. Markus
> could you distribute a copy of your feedback to the Incubator mailing list?
Here we are. Below find messages from the GRASS user and dev mailing
lists which I have roughly put into time order. It's lengthy...
Markus
###################################################
http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grassuser/
http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/ (the name will be changed to
grass-dev asap)
############## START of CITATIONS ##############################
Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com> Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 5:16 AM
To: Markus Neteler <neteler - itc.it>
Cc: grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>, GRASS user list
<grasslist - baylor.edu>
[Quoted text hidden]
> The board has reviewed a proposed committer agreement based loosely on
> the Apache committer agreement. Now we are looking for broader feedback on
> it the agreements. Of most interest is feedback from significant code
> contributors. The draft agreements are available at:
>
> http://www.fossgis.de/osgeo/index.php/Contributor_Agreement
The main issue which I see is that the wording doesn't appear to give
the submitter any choice over the licence(s) used by the foundation:
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license
to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
derivative works.
This appears to suggest that the foundation can redistribute
contributions under whichever licence it chooses, the only restriction
being in the opening paragraph:
In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way
that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its
nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the
Contribution.
Unless the agreement includes a "space" to state a specific licence,
all contributions will essentially be under a BSD/MIT style licence
(i.e. permitting the creation of proprietary derivatives).
--
Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>
######################################################################
Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam - pobox.com> Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 5:34 AM
To: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>
Cc: Rich Steele <Rich.Steele - autodesk.com>, grass developers list
<grass5 - grass.itc.it>, GRASS user list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
Glynn Clements wrote:
> The main issue which I see is that the wording doesn't appear to give
> the submitter any choice over the licence(s) used by the foundation:
>
> 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
> of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide,
> non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license
> to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
> perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such
> derivative works.
>
> This appears to suggest that the foundation can redistribute
> contributions under whichever licence it chooses, the only restriction
> being in the opening paragraph:
>
> In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way
> that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its
> nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the
> Contribution.
>
> Unless the agreement includes a "space" to state a specific licence,
> all contributions will essentially be under a BSD/MIT style licence
> (i.e. permitting the creation of proprietary derivatives).
Glynn,
You are correct that the above terms mean the foundation could
redistribute the code with any OSI license. However, it would
not automatically be BSD/MIT. The foundation could choose to
distribute it under the GPL.
In the case of GRASS the foundation would still have to license
GRASS as a whole under the GPL since it will not be possible to
get all previous contributors to GRASS to sign the contributor
agreement. However, that would not preclude the foundation from
relicensing new developers from contributors working under the
agreement.
I think the intention of this was so that the foundation would
be able to changes licenses in some cases where it is deemed
useful. For instance, situations like upgrading from GPL v2 to
GPL v3 or perhaps making parts of GRASS LGPL so they can be
shared.
For non GPL projects this stuff doesn't matter much. But for
contributors to GPL projects that feel strongly about keeping
them GPL I can see that it could be a problem. In practice
we (the board) are planning to put in place some safeguards.
Stuff like it requiring a super-majority of the PSC and the
foundation board to relicense code (written into the bylaws),
but that is still no guarantee that code would remain GPL for
ever.
This is definitely the part of the agreement that I have been
most concerned about raising red flags.
I am cc:ing Rich Steele, the foundation counsel who prepared
the agreement. He likely can't reply back to the grass lists,
but I think he and the foundation need to think about this aspect
carefully.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam - pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
######################################################################
Hamish <hamish_nospam - yahoo.com> Mon, Mar 6, 2006 at 10:56 AM
To: Markus Neteler <neteler - itc.it>
Cc: grass5 - grass.itc.it
> a new FAQ has been written which explains things related
> to the proposed Contributor Agreements:
>
> http://www.fossgis.de/osgeo/index.php/Contributor_Agreement
reading that some things are clearer, some are not.
Two reactionary and probably non-constructive comments: (I prefer
solutions to complaints, but sometimes it feels good to complain)
1) As things are today, I don't want to share any of my copyright (ie
control of the code) with anyone other than "the GRASS development team".
Not to a group made up of people I mostly don't know with no established
track record. I am sure everyone on the board are wonderful people but
trust comes through personal observation, not reputation. I am sure it
is quite impossible to ever make modern GRASS non-GPL as to contact
everyone holding copyright or their surviving heirs is not practicable;
as is unwinding their contributions. So I am not very worried about a
license hijack here. What I am worried about, from a practical and "new
code" standpoint, is that if the power isn't held by the developers,
and decisions are made, even for non-malfeasant reasons, if these do not
align with the interests of the developers, then developers will walk
away quickly (unless well paid of course). This would quickly kill the
project. Control and recognition is an open source developer's capital-
we need to make very sure that by standing under the OSGeo banner we
don't stand in the shadow of it, and lose both.
I assign co-copyright of all my GRASS contributions to date to "the
GRASS development team", meaning I agree that it is up to the team
to decide what is best. If co-copyright on new code is assigned to
OSGeo, how do I assert G.D.T. decisions have priority over OSGeo w.r.t.
GRASS matters?
2) I don't like signing things. Rousseau's social contract not
withstanding, the benefit has to flow both ways. Am I concerned if a
non-contributing corporation can get ISO9000 certification while
depending on OSGeo software? Honestly?
I would advocate a go-slow approach. Call me the stick in the mud.
Interesting parallels with the for-the-users or for-the-developers
usability debates.
Hamish
######################################################################
Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam - pobox.com> Mon, Mar 6, 2006 at 2:49 PM
To: grass5 - grass.itc.it
Hamish wrote:
> I assign co-copyright of all my GRASS contributions to date to "the
> GRASS development team", meaning I agree that it is up to the team
> to decide what is best. If co-copyright on new code is assigned to
> OSGeo, how do I assert G.D.T. decisions have priority over OSGeo w.r.t.
> GRASS matters?
Hamish,
From a legal point of view, assigning copyright to the "GRASS
Development Team" is a very questionable practice because there
is no such legal entity. Someone could setup a legal corporation
named the "GRASS Development Team" and (arguable) assert copyright
control over such portions of GRASS.
Assigning copyright to the foundation would be one alternative,
and the foundation does have legal standing to own things. However,
for the trust reasons you mention we can see that this might not
be appealing to everyone. That is why we also allow people to
retain copyright ownership of the code as long as a clear right
to redistribute is provided.
> 2) I don't like signing things. Rousseau's social contract not
> withstanding, the benefit has to flow both ways. Am I concerned if a
> non-contributing corporation can get ISO9000 certification while
> depending on OSGeo software? Honestly?
I didn't really follow the ISO9000 point, but I can understand the
point about "what is the benefit to the developer?" in signing. I
have to assume that you are starting with an interest in contributing
to GRASS. If you do, then this becomes one of the requirements of
being a committer.
The agreement should be benefiting the developer in that is provides
a means for the foundation to have legal standing to defend against
legal attacks against GRASS. Having to do this piecemeal as individual
developers would really suck. However, I must admit this could seem
like a rather theoretical benefit since we have not seen much in the
way of legal threats in the OSGeo community to date.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam - pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org
######################################################################
Richard Greenwood <richard.greenwood - gmail.com> Tue, Mar 7, 2006 at 5:25 AM
To: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>
Cc: Markus Neteler <neteler - itc.it>, grass developers list <grass5 -
grass.itc.it>,
GRASS user list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
On 3/6/06, Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com> wrote:
> Personally, I don't intend to sign the proposed CLA.
Glynn,
I have lurked on this list for long enough to know the contributions
that you make to GRASS. I am curious as to why you do not intend to
sign the CLA. I am not asking this as a 'leading' question. I am quite
ignorant of IP license issues and I would like to understand your
position.
Regards,
Rich
--
Richard Greenwood
richard.greenwood - gmail.com
www.greenwoodmap.com
######################################################################
Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 3:40 AM
To: Richard Greenwood <richard.greenwood - gmail.com>
Cc: grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>, GRASS user list
<grasslist - baylor.edu>
Richard Greenwood wrote:
> > Personally, I don't intend to sign the proposed CLA.
>
> I have lurked on this list for long enough to know the contributions
> that you make to GRASS. I am curious as to why you do not intend to
> sign the CLA. I am not asking this as a 'leading' question. I am quite
> ignorant of IP license issues and I would like to understand your
> position.
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 Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>
######################################################################
Hamish <hamish_nospam - yahoo.com> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 10:29 AM
To: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam - pobox.com>
Cc: grass5 - grass.itc.it
> > I assign co-copyright of all my GRASS contributions to date to
> > "the GRASS development team", meaning I agree that it is up to the
> > team to decide what is best. If co-copyright on new code is assigned
> > to OSGeo, how do I assert G.D.T. decisions have priority over OSGeo
> > w.r.t. GRASS matters?
>
> Hamish,
>
> From a legal point of view, assigning copyright to the "GRASS
> Development Team" is a very questionable practice because there
> is no such legal entity. Someone could setup a legal corporation
> named the "GRASS Development Team" and (arguable) assert copyright
> control over such portions of GRASS.
I see your point. Maybe we should look at incorporating "GRASS
Development Team" as a non-profit organization. It takes time but isn't
all that hard to do.
> Assigning copyright to the foundation would be one alternative,
> and the foundation does have legal standing to own things. However,
> for the trust reasons you mention we can see that this might not
> be appealing to everyone. That is why we also allow people to
> retain copyright ownership of the code as long as a clear right
> to redistribute is provided.
I think the trust issue will disappear with time as the foundation gets
established. e.g. I don't think folks would think twice about assigning
copyright to the FSF or GNU foundation today if that is what they wanted
to do with their code. The "distance" from the board to the devels on
the ground may not disappear with time, and that worries me -- if the
"shareholder rights" are not clear, people may not contribute.
Assigning co-copyright to yourself & to the mothership is probably a
good idea for any developer. i.e. both parties are free to do with the
code (relicense or reuse) as they please. - I take it if co-copyright
is assigned one party doesn't need the permission of the other to do
whatever it is they want to do with it?
> > 2) I don't like signing things. Rousseau's social contract not
> > withstanding, the benefit has to flow both ways. Am I concerned if a
> > non-contributing corporation can get ISO9000 certification while
> > depending on OSGeo software? Honestly?
>
> I didn't really follow the ISO9000 point,
as far as I see it, having commit rights restricted to those who have
signed a legal contract does two things:
1) makes managers at corps & govts happy that their "mission critical"
software has controlled entry points, procedures, and chain of command.
In reality I don't think it improves the quality or reduces the chances
of backdoors, but it means the foundation's customers can tick the
no-hippy box when trying to certify their production chain to their
internal auditors.
2) It deflects a large amount of the liability from the foundation to
the developer. The project is protected, but my house isn't, and I can't
expect that the OSGeo or FSF lawyers will come to my defense, even in
the case of a no-fault submarine patent suit. The CLA creates a paper
trail which focuses the blame. Item #5 should be manageable, but item #4
is harder unless everyone has a contract lawyer when they start their
job, submarine patents, etc...
I don't really care about (1) but am willing to do a minimum amount of
work to comply with the needs of large organizations. I do care about (2).
> but I can understand the point about "what is the benefit to the
> developer?" in signing. I have to assume that you are starting with
> an interest in contributing to GRASS. If you do, then this becomes
> one of the requirements of being a committer.
There is a balance point between "interest in contributing" and "signing
away your rights". I think for many part-time devels, the interest has
little mass; the software becomes a great pile of code created from
millions of little feather patches - to strech an analogy.
I see signing the agreement benefiting the developer in the sense that
it may accelerate the development of the software by bringing in new
corporate and government users. eg Agreeing to give up your right to
drive on whichever side of the road you please in return for the freedom
to comfortably drive at speed without worry of a head-on collision.
The question is: do the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived
costs..?
Also, I think it is unrealistic to expect a couple of signed-on gate
keepers to QA all the incoming code, especially in the case of GRASS.
There is just too much to understand & review.
> The agreement should be benefiting the developer in that is provides
> a means for the foundation to have legal standing to defend against
> legal attacks against GRASS. Having to do this piecemeal as
> individual developers would really suck. However, I must admit this
> could seem like a rather theoretical benefit since we have not seen
> much in the way of legal threats in the OSGeo community to date.
None the less a very real possibility we should protect ourselves from.
I don't want us to be the test case.
regards,
Hamish
######################################################################
Michael Barton <michael.barton - asu.edu> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 6:57 AM
To: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, Richard Greenwood
<richard.greenwood - gmail.com>
Cc: grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>, Multiple recipients
of list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
I understand this perspective and welcome mechanisms by which developers and
contributors can have their work properly credited and distributed.
On the other hand, I've already run into problems in trying to establish
links between GRASS and other open source software, using other licenses
(BSD and MIT). Because GRASS is GPL, if the developers of the other software
do not want to license under GPL, we are very limited in the kinds of
linkages we can establish. I understand (I think) the basic principals
though not the legal details.
It would be nice if we could maintain GPL principals for contributors who
feel most strongly about this, but could also find some way to let GRASS
interact more flexibly with other software. I don't know how this can
happen, but I hope that OSGeo can help work some of this out.
Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution and Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton
######################################################################
Markus Neteler <neteler - itc.it> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Reply-To: Michael Barton <michael.barton - asu.edu>, Glynn Clements
<glynn - gclements.plus.com>, Richard Greenwood <richard.greenwood -
gmail.com>,
grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>, Multiple recipients of
list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
To: Michael Barton <michael.barton - asu.edu>
Cc: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, Richard Greenwood
<richard.greenwood - gmail.com>, grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>,
Multiple recipients of list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:57:12PM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:
> I understand this perspective and welcome mechanisms by which developers and
> contributors can have their work properly credited and distributed.
>
> On the other hand, I've already run into problems in trying to establish
> links between GRASS and other open source software, using other licenses
> (BSD and MIT). Because GRASS is GPL, if the developers of the other software
> do not want to license under GPL, we are very limited in the kinds of
> linkages we can establish. I understand (I think) the basic principals
> though not the legal details.
Glynn,
there have been discussions earlier on releasing some libraries
under LGPL (you will remember).
What's your suggestions to deal with the issue mentioned by Michael?
Markus
######################################################################
Jan-Oliver Wagner <jan - intevation.de> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Reply-To: grass5 - grass.itc.it, Michael Barton <michael.barton - asu.edu>,
Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, Richard Greenwood
<richard.greenwood - gmail.com>,
Multiple recipients of list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
To: grass5 - grass.itc.it
Cc: Michael Barton <michael.barton - asu.edu>, Glynn Clements <glynn -
gclements.plus.com>,
Richard Greenwood <richard.greenwood - gmail.com>, Multiple
recipients of list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:52:49AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:57:12PM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:
> > I understand this perspective and welcome mechanisms by which developers and
> > contributors can have their work properly credited and distributed.
> >
> > On the other hand, I've already run into problems in trying to establish
> > links between GRASS and other open source software, using other licenses
> > (BSD and MIT). Because GRASS is GPL, if the developers of the other software
> > do not want to license under GPL, we are very limited in the kinds of
> > linkages we can establish. I understand (I think) the basic principals
> > though not the legal details.
> there have been discussions earlier on releasing some libraries
> under LGPL (you will remember).
>
> What's your suggestions to deal with the issue mentioned by Michael?
Micheal mentioned BSD and MIT licensed software.
These two licenses are GPL-compatible.
There shouldn't be a major issue, should there?
Best
Jan
--
Jan-Oliver Wagner: www.intevation.de/~jan | GISpatcher: www.gispatcher.de
Kolab Konsortium : www.kolab-konsortium.de | Thuban : thuban.intevation.org
Intevation GmbH : www.intevation.de | Kolab : www.kolab.org
FreeGIS : www.freegis.org | GAV : www.grass-verein.de
######################################################################
Francesco P. Lovergine <frankie - debian.org> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Reply-To: grass5 - grass.itc.it, Michael Barton <michael.barton - asu.edu>,
Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, Richard Greenwood
<richard.greenwood - gmail.com>,
Multiple recipients of list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
To: grass5 - grass.itc.it
Cc: Michael Barton <michael.barton - asu.edu>, Glynn Clements <glynn -
gclements.plus.com>,
Richard Greenwood <richard.greenwood - gmail.com>, Multiple recipients
of list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:14:57AM +0100, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:52:49AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:57:12PM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:
> > > On the other hand, I've already run into problems in trying to establish
> > > links between GRASS and other open source software, using other licenses
> > > (BSD and MIT). Because GRASS is GPL, if the developers of the other software
> > > do not want to license under GPL, we are very limited in the kinds of
> > > linkages we can establish. I understand (I think) the basic principals
> > > though not the legal details.
>
>
> > there have been discussions earlier on releasing some libraries
> > under LGPL (you will remember).
> >
> > What's your suggestions to deal with the issue mentioned by Michael?
>
> Micheal mentioned BSD and MIT licensed software.
> These two licenses are GPL-compatible.
> There shouldn't be a major issue, should there?
>
In other contexts there are problems of compatibility with old-BSD (that
with the inpractical advertising clause) and some odd licenses such
as OpenSSL one. In those cases the copyright holders (of GRASS libs)
could issue a specific exception for GRASS libs to allow other parties to
interoperate without problems with other non-GPL compatible free
licenses. See for instance:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mysql-floss-license-exception.html
And yes, new-BSD and MIT/Mozilla are GPL compatible.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
######################################################################
Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam - pobox.com> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 4:17 AM
To: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>
Cc: grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>, GRASS user list
<grasslist - baylor.edu>
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?
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam - pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org
######################################################################
Roger Bivand <Roger.Bivand - nhh.no> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 8:48 AM
Reply-To: Roger.Bivand - nhh.no
To: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam - pobox.com>
Cc: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, grass developers list
<grass5 - grass.itc.it>, GRASS user list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
[Quoted text hidden]
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 - nhh.no
######################################################################
Paolo Cavallini <cavallini - faunalia.it> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 9:45 AM
Reply-To: cavallini - faunalia.it
To: grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
Hi all.
A professional user view: for us, it is VERY important to have guarantees that
the GRASS code will remain free. The risk of hijacking is a serious threat to
our business.
pc
At 08:48, mercoledì 08 marzo 2006, Roger Bivand has probably written:
...
> 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.
...
--
Paolo Cavallini
email+jabber: cavallini - faunalia.it
www.faunalia.it
Piazza Garibaldi 5 - 56025 Pontedera (PI), Italy Tel: (+39)348-3801953
######################################################################
Markus Neteler <neteler - itc.it> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Reply-To: Paolo Cavallini <cavallini - faunalia.it>, grass developers
list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
To: Paolo Cavallini <cavallini - faunalia.it>
Cc: grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
Paolo,
I don't think that there is any intention to render GRASS
non-free. The idea of the foundation is to protect the freedom
of GFOSS projects. It's debatable though, if MIT/X11 means
freedom (for some it does, see GDAL/OGR).
GPL and LGPL do so in my opinion.
Let's see what OSGeo board/lawyer/discussion answers now,
I have sent the GRASS dev team comments to the board list
of OSGeo.
Markus
######################################################################
Wolf Bergenheim <wolf+grass - bergenheim.net> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 10:24 AM
To: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam - pobox.com>
Cc: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, grass developers list
<grass5 - grass.itc.it>, GRASS user list <grasslist - baylor.edu>
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]
I haven't had time to contribute as much as I would, but I also support
Glynn's view.
--Wolf
--
<:3 )---- Wolf Bergenheim ----( 8:>
######################################################################
Huidae Cho <grass4u - gmail.com> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 12:32 PM
To: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>
Cc: cavallini - faunalia.it, grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:18:04AM +0000, Glynn Clements wrote:
>
> Paolo Cavallini wrote:
>
> > A professional user view: for us, it is VERY important to have guarantees that
> > the GRASS code will remain free. The risk of hijacking is a serious threat to
> > our business.
>
> Regardless of whatever happens with OSGeo, you will always be able to
> use existing versions under the GPL. The proposed OSGeo CLA creates
> the possibility that future enhancements might not be under the GPL.
> But regardless of OSGeo, there's no actual guarantee that future
> enhancements will occur, or that they will take GRASS in a direction
> which is suitable for your purposes.
>
> As I see it, the main risk of allowing proprietary derivatives is a
> risk of "siphoning off" developers and beta testers (aka "users") from
> the free version towards a "mostly, but not quite" free version.
>
> IMHO, the biggest risk is with versions which are "free-enough for
> most people", e.g. "free for non-commercial use". OpenDWG is probably
> a good example; it isn't "Free Software", but it's close enough to
> significantly reduce the chances of a genuinely-free alternative being
> developed.
>
I totally agree with you on this matter. Most of end users will turn to a
"better, yet free enough" software and, IMHO, there is great possibility that a
non free software will do things better for them especially if it's a
derivative work. It would be disastrous to, in any way, limit the developers'
right to choose appropriate copyright for their own code.
Huidae Cho
> --
> Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>
>
######################################################################
Moritz Lennert <mlennert - club.worldonline.be> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 2:57 PM
To: "Laurent C." <lrntct - gmail.com>
Cc: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, cavallini - faunalia.it,
grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
Laurent C. wrote:
> 2006/3/8, Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com
> <mailto:glynn - gclements.plus.com>>:
>
>
> As I see it, the main risk of allowing proprietary derivatives is a
> risk of "siphoning off" developers and beta testers (aka "users") from
> the free version towards a "mostly, but not quite" free version.
>
> IMHO, the biggest risk is with versions which are "free-enough for
> most people", e.g. "free for non-commercial use". OpenDWG is probably
> a good example; it isn't "Free Software", but it's close enough to
> significantly reduce the chances of a genuinely-free alternative being
> developed.
>
>
>
> Hello list, hello Glynn,
>
> I don't think OpenDWG is a good example because there is no free
> alternative and AFAIK Open Desing Alliance hasn't fork any free
> software, and there is no community around this project.
That's exactly the point: since there is something "free-enough for most
people" as Glynn puts it, there is not enough incentive for the creation
of a really free version.
Using the GPL should keep people from using the existing code to create
such "free-enough for most people".
Moritz
######################################################################
Laurent C. <lrntct - gmail.com> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 3:22 PM
To: Moritz Lennert <mlennert - club.worldonline.be>
Cc: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, cavallini - faunalia.it,
grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
2006/3/8, Moritz Lennert <mlennert - club.worldonline.be>:
Laurent C. wrote:
> 2006/3/8, Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com
> <mailto:glynn - gclements.plus.com>>:
>
>
> As I see it, the main risk of allowing proprietary derivatives is a
> risk of "siphoning off" developers and beta testers (aka "users") from
> the free version towards a "mostly, but not quite" free version.
>
> IMHO, the biggest risk is with versions which are "free-enough for
> most people", e.g. "free for non-commercial use". OpenDWG is probably
> a good example; it isn't "Free Software", but it's close enough to
> significantly reduce the chances of a genuinely-free alternative being
> developed.
>
>
>
> Hello list, hello Glynn,
>
> I don't think OpenDWG is a good example because there is no free
> alternative and AFAIK Open Desing Alliance hasn't fork any free
> software, and there is no community around this project.
That's exactly the point: since there is something "free-enough for most
people" as Glynn puts it, there is not enough incentive for the creation
of a really free version.
Using the GPL should keep people from using the existing code to create
such "free-enough for most people".
Moritz
I understand that, but I don't think it apply to GRASS.
I mean "no comunity around ODA". GRASS community is active.
ODA is some commercial consortium.
I think that GRASS will be in the situation of "OpenDWG competitor"
if ESRI release Arcinfo under a "free-enough for most
people" licence. Not if some GRASS parts (libraries for example) are
released under a BSD-like licence.
Laurent
######################################################################
Thomas Adams <Thomas.Adams - noaa.gov> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 3:24 PM
To: "Laurent C." <lrntct - gmail.com>
Cc: Glynn Clements <glynn - gclements.plus.com>, cavallini - faunalia.it,
grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
I am not a GRASS developer at this point, but I would *like* to begin
contributing at some point in the future as some time frees up for me.
Personally, I prefer the 'R' model and the term "free-enough for most
people" worries me. Does the R licensing fall under the "free-enough for
most people" umbrella? If so, then I guess it works out OK. It indeed
would be a shame to see some of the most productive developers siphoned
off as Glynn suggests could happen.
Tom
--
Thomas E Adams
National Weather Service
Ohio River Forecast Center
1901 South State Route 134
Wilmington, OH 45177
EMAIL: thomas.adams - noaa.gov
VOICE: 937-383-0528
FAX: 937-383-0033
######################################################################
Roger Bivand <Roger.Bivand - nhh.no> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 3:46 PM
Reply-To: Roger.Bivand - nhh.no
To: Thomas Adams <Thomas.Adams - noaa.gov>
Cc: "Laurent C." <lrntct - gmail.com>, Glynn Clements <glynn -
gclements.plus.com>,
cavallini - faunalia.it, grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Thomas Adams wrote:
> I am not a GRASS developer at this point, but I would *like* to begin
> contributing at some point in the future as some time frees up for me.
> Personally, I prefer the 'R' model and the term "free-enough for most
> people" worries me. Does the R licensing fall under the "free-enough for
> most people" umbrella? If so, then I guess it works out OK. It indeed
> would be a shame to see some of the most productive developers siphoned
> off as Glynn suggests could happen.
No, the approach adopted by the R core developers is very much that
expressed by Glynn. The "free enough for most people" view is a user trap,
making users remain consumers rather than encouraging users to contribute
mutually to development, it makes the user base more passive. It also
deters developers from contributing unless they have security that their
effort and skill will not be abused. It's a matter of confidence within
the broader community of users and developers, where everybody can make a
useful contribution, not least by asking good questions. There are
honest differences of opinion, of course, but the R community is GPL/LGPL
for the core engine and the vast majority of contributed packages.
Roger
--
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 - nhh.no
######################################################################
Thomas Adams <Thomas.Adams - noaa.gov> Wed, Mar 8, 2006 at 3:55 PM
To: Roger.Bivand - nhh.no
Cc: "Laurent C." <lrntct - gmail.com>, Glynn Clements <glynn -
gclements.plus.com>,
cavallini - faunalia.it, grass developers list <grass5 - grass.itc.it>
Roger,
Thank you very much for the clarification. FWIW, then, I believe that
the "free-enough for most people" concept would definitely be the wrong
way to go for the reasons you state. A major strength of R and what
GRASS has done over the years comes from the contributions of
user/developers and I don't think any of us want to see this stifled.
Tom
[Quoted text hidden]
Thomas E Adams
National Weather Service
Ohio River Forecast Center
1901 South State Route 134
Wilmington, OH 45177
EMAIL: thomas.adams - noaa.gov
VOICE: 937-383-0528
FAX: 937-383-0033
################### END of citations #########################
More information about the Incubator
mailing list