[Geoserver-devel] FLOSS Exception for GeoServer?

GeoServer GeoServer Developer
1

Hey all, I'd like to get some feedback on something before I make a GSIP.

A few leading open source GPL projects have a 'floss exception', which basically says that it's ok to combine the GPL project with another open source project and not 'infect' the other one with the GPL. In my understanding any improvements to the GPL project have to also be GPL, but the combined work doesn't need.

The goal of this would be so more open source projects can make use of GeoServer, ship it directly, without having to change their license. Proprietary projects are not covered by it - they would need the commercial license we've talked about in the past.

For examples see:

http://www.alfresco.com/legal/licensing/floss_exception/
http://www.extjs.com/products/floss-exception.php
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/

I've always thought this would be a nice idea, but it's come up specifically lately as polymap - http://www.polymap.org/ - is interested in using GeoServer, but their license is GPL. Adding the FLOSS exception would let them make use of GeoServer, instead of having to change to deegree.

I've looked in to it a decent bit, but more eyes on it to figure out all the implications would be good.

Thoughts? Concerns? If we get general consensus I'd be happy to make the GSIP for it.

2

Chris Holmes ha scritto:

I've always thought this would be a nice idea, but it's come up specifically lately as polymap - http://www.polymap.org/ - is interested in using GeoServer, but their license is GPL.

Typo: the polymap license is LGPL

Adding the FLOSS exception would let them make use of GeoServer, instead of having to change to deegree.

I've looked in to it a decent bit, but more eyes on it to figure out all the implications would be good.

Thoughts? Concerns? If we get general consensus I'd be happy to make the GSIP for it.

I see no particular problem. On the contrary, by looking at the history
of PostGIS, MapServer, GDAL I'm starting to wonder if a license such
as the GPL is not doing GeoServer more harm than good.
Just a doubt at the moment, and besides, it's another discussion altogether :-p

Cheers
Andrea

--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.

3

On 21/04/10 02:37, Andrea Aime wrote:

I see no particular problem. On the contrary, by looking at the history
of PostGIS, MapServer, GDAL I'm starting to wonder if a license such
as the GPL is not doing GeoServer more harm than good.
Just a doubt at the moment, and besides, it's another discussion
altogether :-p

I would be happy with a move to LGPL. In my view, this is a business decision for OpenGeo.

From the community point of view, the question should be: Does the income from commercial licenses for GeoServer fund more development than an expanded user and developer base would?

Option 1: GPL plus commercial licenses (these are the current arrangements).
Result: OpenGeo sells licenses and reinvests in GeoServer development.

Option 2: LGPL, which would let commercial derivatives use GeoServer for free, and only have to contribute back core GeoServer changes.
Result: Increased adoption by Open Source projects and commercial users, resulting in more sweat equity contributed back to GeoServer. How much more? Who can say.

So from the community point of view, the question is: which option generates the most GeoServer development?

From the OpenGeo point of view, the question might be, what fraction of income do commercial licenses generate, compared to service contracts? But I don't speak for OpenGeo, nor do I claim any business expertise. :slight_smile:

Just my two bits.

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineering Team Leader
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre

4

Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

On 21/04/10 02:37, Andrea Aime wrote:

I see no particular problem. On the contrary, by looking at the history
of PostGIS, MapServer, GDAL I'm starting to wonder if a license such
as the GPL is not doing GeoServer more harm than good.
Just a doubt at the moment, and besides, it's another discussion
altogether :-p

I would be happy with a move to LGPL. In my view, this is a business decision for OpenGeo.

From the community point of view, the question should be: Does the income from commercial licenses for GeoServer fund more development than an expanded user and developer base would?

Option 1: GPL plus commercial licenses (these are the current arrangements).
Result: OpenGeo sells licenses and reinvests in GeoServer development.

Option 2: LGPL, which would let commercial derivatives use GeoServer for free, and only have to contribute back core GeoServer changes.
Result: Increased adoption by Open Source projects and commercial users, resulting in more sweat equity contributed back to GeoServer. How much more? Who can say.

So from the community point of view, the question is: which option generates the most GeoServer development?

From the OpenGeo point of view, the question might be, what fraction of income do commercial licenses generate, compared to service contracts? But I don't speak for OpenGeo, nor do I claim any business expertise. :slight_smile:

Just my two bits.

Kind regards,

I like the idea of the floss exception much more than an outright move to LGPL. From an integrator standpoint, I often like having the threat of GPL to force any patches back out into the world (though it does cause us some grief). I also see the frustration uDig developers encounter of seeing the same functionality implemented over and over and never contributed back.

Mark Leslie
Geospatial Software Architect
LISAsoft

-------------------------------------------------------------
Ph: +61 2 8570 5000 Fax: +61 2 8570 5099 Mob: +61
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf 19-21 Pirrama Rd Pyrmont NSW 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------

LISAsoft is part of the A2end Group of Companies
http://www.ardec.com.au
http://www.lisasoft.com
http://www.terrapages.com

5

On 21/04/2010, at 1:58 AM, Chris Holmes wrote:

I've always thought this would be a nice idea, but it's come up
specifically lately as polymap - http://www.polymap.org/ - is interested
in using GeoServer, but their license is GPL. Adding the FLOSS
exception would let them make use of GeoServer, instead of having to
change to deegree.

I am confused - if there license is GPL there is no trouble.
Checking ... there license is LGPL.

I've looked in to it a decent bit, but more eyes on it to figure out all the implications would be good.

Thoughts? Concerns? If we get general consensus I'd be happy to make the GSIP for it.

In the past we have explicitly asked/migrated some code to GeoTools with the appropriate change of license. I assume you are talking
larger chunks here.

I will think; I don't think I have an serious problem with this as long as it is an explicit relationship (similar to what a commercial company would negotiate when they license the geoserver code). I should ask how this effects projects that extend polymap?

Jody