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

Thu Jun 2 22:39:04 EDT 2011

Hi Steve and Anton,

First of all, there are already a couple of contributors to pgRouting and
personally I don't want to invest time to get agreements from everyone in
case we want to change a license. To setup a PSC was already some waste of
time, that could have been spent better. ;-)

Also it makes sense in my opinion to just have the same license for
pgRouting as PostGIS has.
So from the pgRouting side I'm not really supporting any license change.

Daniel

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev at georepublic.de>

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pgrouting-dev/attachments/20110603/0a6903d6/attachment.html