[pgrouting-dev] Licensing for Co-development between OpenGraphRouter and pgRouting

[Anton Patrushev]

Well, that's exactly what I was asking about - having dual MIT/GPL
license for pgRouting why one would prefer GPL when MIT option is
available? I mean, isn't it worth to think about moving to MIT-X
instead?

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com> wrote:
> Ok, so if I understand the licensing issues correctly:
>
> 1. any code developed in opengraphrouter under MIT-X is good provided we
> do not introduce any GPL code into that code base.
>
> 2. we can use the opengraphrouter code in pgRouting because MIT-X is
> compatible for inclusion with GPL code and this does not pollute
> opengraphrouter code.
>
> Does this sound correct?
>
> This is important because Ashraf has more time to work on
> opengraphrouter and one of my goals for him is to look into getting our
> code callable from pgRouting. I want him to be more familiar with the
> issues involved in doing that and we are interested in developing an
> MIT-X licensed version of the contraction highways code in opengraphrouter.
>
> Why use MIT-X vs GPL vs a dual license?
>
> I do not want to start a License war thread, so I will state up front
> that all these licenses have a place and a philosophy that they support
> and everyone is entitled to their opinions. That said, I think that long
> term if we can get these working together there can be some significant
> benefits in potentially getting funding for development and porting the
> code to other environments and databases. If you looks at mapserver as
> an example they are very successful at getting funded projects - there
> are a lot of reasons for this and not all are obvious, but it is my
> strong belief that have an MIT-X license lowers the barriers to getting
> commercial companies to consider funding development. None of my
> consulting clients want any GPL v3 code in their infrastructure and they
> are extremely cautious about including GPL based components and it is a
> really hard sell to get them to consider funding GPL development.
>
> Based on 1. and 2. above if these are true, then a dual license is
> probably not required. It would be nice if pgRouting had a dual license
> because then code could move from pgRouting back to opengraphrouter
> which would facilitate development. Under the current licensing code can
> flow from opengraphrouter to pgrouting but not the other way. This means
> we have to recreate all the tools there that we might want rather than
> create new tools. If we are successful in building an a good library
> that can be the future under pinning of pgrouting and other systems it
> seems to be a waste of effort to not reuse what you have there. A good
> example of code we might like to reuse are all the boost_*.cpp function.
>
> Regarding CGAL, I would be all for dropping that. I have developed code
> that I'm considering adding to opengraphrouter that does the
> triangularization and contour creation. If I do that then that could be
> a potential replacement for CGAL, I also have a fast TSP routine that I
> might also contribute opengraphrouter.
>
> -Steve
>
> On 6/2/2011 9:36 PM, Anton Patrushev wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Doesn't this statement
>>   * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>   * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>>   * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>>   * (at your option) any later version.
>> assume later (i.e. v3) versions?
>>
>> I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don't think that PostGIS hulls
>> fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.
>>
>> Anton.
>>
>> On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl<daniel at georepublic.de>  wrote:
>>> 2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev<anton.patrushev at georepublic.de>
>>>
>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>
>>>> I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
>>>> year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
>>>> can't imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it hasn't changed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
>>>> under
>>>> GPL.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for driving
>>> distance.
>>> With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn't
>>> necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anton.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge<woodbri at swoodbridge.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Hi PSC,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
>>>>> OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The
>>>>> first
>>>>> issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
>>>>> style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
>>>>> using a GPLv2 License.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
>>>>> which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
>>>>> would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
>>>>> MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
>>>>> have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
>>>>> OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing
>>>>> issues?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
>>>>> pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS
>>>> licensing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank, Paul, can you comment please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>     -Steve
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pgrouting-dev mailing list
>>>>> pgrouting-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
>>>> Salzmannstraße 44,
>>>> 81739 München, Germany
>>>>
>>>> Anton Patrushev
>>>> CTO
>>>>
>>>> eMail: anton.patrushev at georepublic.de
>>>> Web: http://georepublic.de
>>>>
>>>> Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
>>>> Sip: 1959519 at sipgate.de
>>>>
>>>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
>>>> CEO: Daniel Kastl
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pgrouting-dev mailing list
>>>> pgrouting-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Georepublic UG&  Georepublic Japan
>>> eMail: daniel.kastl at georepublic.de
>>> Web: http://georepublic.de
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pgrouting-dev mailing list
> pgrouting-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
>


-- 
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev at georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519 at sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl