[Proj] Geo Transfoms and calculations

[Gerald I. Evenden]

I will not argue with what you have said but lets look at it from my 
perspective:

1.  I can sit here in my cozy den and hack away and use all sorts of software 
out there that is free for the download.  I am very fat and happy and get 
along just fine.

2.  Also remember that this is an advocational activity and I do not have any 
monetary involvement.  My main expense is the hardware I occasionally update 
and the electric power used and maybe the occasional book or library trip.

3.  After a fun period of hacking I come up with something that may be of 
interest to others.  In the good 'ol days this used to be simple: just put a 
note out on usenet or a bulletin board and pass out floppies.  No hassle.

4.  Now I need to put disclaimers, ... blah, blah, ... and get the feeling 
that I need to put an attorney on retainer.  And occassionally get dumped 
upon by others if I make a choice of using someone else's "free" software 
that apparently upsets the potential users of my software legal apple cart.

5.  What's a poor jerk like me supposed to do?  For example, on the geodetic 
program I am currently finishing up I want to put 'readline' on the front end 
for obvious reasons; BUT wait, that uses GPL.  Arrgh!  I can hear the 
bitching and moaning now.  At the moment I have a simple procedure 
called 'readline' as a substitute but gee, is the name possible copyrighted 
too?

That is why I get cranky about the whole issue.

On Wednesday 31 December 2008 10:17:59 am Charles Karney wrote:
> Let me defend the GPL.  If you write some software and
>
> (a) you'd like everyone to be able to use it (including reading/
>     modifying the code) and
>
> (b) you don't want anyone "extending" your code and then selling
>     binary-only copies of the extended code
>
> then GPL is an appropriate license.  Stallman isn't forcing GPL on
> anyone; the GPL is merely protecting the authors' rights.  If you don't
> like the GPL license on the GSL, then just imagine a possible
> alternative: negotiate with the Numerical Algorithms Group for a license
> to NAG.
>
> > [Stallman] and GPL [do] nothing but impede open interchange of
> > software.
>
> This just shows an ignorance of history.  To mention one example:
> Torvalds chose the GPL for Linux.  A more "liberal" license (e.g., the
> MIT license) would have resulted in a Balkanized effort with multiple
> commercial entities attempting to sell versions of Linux with their
> various proprietary extensions.  (Similarly you should be thankful that
> the gcc compiler is covered by the GPL.)



-- 
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.
-- Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) British psychologist