[GRASS-dev] Compatibility of GPL v.2/3 and EUPL v1.2 licenses

Dear GRASS GIS team,

does publishing a GRASS GIS add-on, in the official GRASS GIS Addon SVN
repository [0] or else in any other git-based source code repository,
under the EUPL v1.2 license [1], constitute a breach of the GPL v.2/3
license(s) [3], under which GRASS GIS is published?

[0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons
[1] https://eupl.eu/1.2/en/
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html /
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

The GPL license is a "strong copyleft" license. However, it is not downstream
compatible with the EUPL license. The latter is a "flexible copyleft" license,
as it includes a "compatibility clause" that references, among others, the GPL
license(s).

Does the "at arm's length" case apply for GRASS GIS and GRASS GIS
addons? Do GRASS GIS core and GRASS GIS addons considered to operate as
one?

If yes,

1. this would mean that the GPL and the EUPL cannot be combined, in
the case of GRASS GIS addons.

2. would the GRASS GIS team consider to add a similar "compatibility
clause" to effectively make both licenses 100% cross-compatible?

The specific case is an addon that:

- is a Python script (or more Python scripts)

- uses the following Python librairies: os, sys, subprocess, datetime,
  time, csv, math, atexit

- uses the following PyGRASS librairies: grass.script, grass.exceptions,
  grass.pygrass.modules.shortcuts

- a `Makefile` that points to the following GRASS GIS' source code
  files, at compile time to generate a GUI and an HTML file (the
  manual):
    - `$(MODULE_TOPDIR)/include/Make/Script.make` and
    - `$(MODULE_TOPDIR)/include/Make/Python.make`

- uses GRASS GIS data base and modules (binaries and not their source
  code) to perform raster and/or vector processing operations

Note also,

- the page https://grass.osgeo.org/home/copyright/ states:

    "Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) is Copyright,
    1999-2018 GRASS Development Team, and licensed under terms of the
    GNU General Public License (GPL). This includes all software,
    documentation, and associated materials."

- `g.version -c`, returns, among other text:

    "Parts of GRASS are not copyright by the GRASS development team.
    The original authors hold the copyrights and you have to abide
    to their licensing terms where noted.
    (Keep in mind that code linking into GRASS can only be distributed
    if compatible with the GPL.)"

Is, effectively, the compilation of a GRASS GIS addon, using the above
mentioned source code files, considered as "linking into GRASS"?

Thank you, Nikos

ps- Please note that the link to
https://grass.osgeo.org/grass77/source/COPYING
under
https://grass.osgeo.org/download/software/sources/
is broken.

* Nikos Alexandris <nik@nikosalexandris.net> [2018-10-22 13:51:01 +0200]:

Is, effectively, the compilation of a GRASS GIS addon, using the above
mentioned source code files, considered as "linking into GRASS"?

Here the section "Discussion on “Linking" from
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences#section-3

(After an off-list communication with
https://twitter.com/luis_m_de_sousa, thank you)

It would be nice to have an official answer. or text for these
questions.

Nikos

On 22/10/18 16:33, Nikos Alexandris wrote:

* Nikos Alexandris <nik@nikosalexandris.net> [2018-10-22 13:51:01 +0200]:

Is, effectively, the compilation of a GRASS GIS addon, using the above
mentioned source code files, considered as "linking into GRASS"?

Here the section "Discussion on “Linking" from
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences#section-3

(After an off-list communication with
https://twitter.com/luis_m_de_sousa, thank you)

It would be nice to have an official answer. or text for these
questions.

I don't know if anyone of us is a lawyer, so maybe this is something which should be put before the FSF ?

Moritz

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:49 AM Nikos Alexandris <nik@nikosalexandris.net> wrote:

Does the “at arm’s length” case apply for GRASS GIS and GRASS GIS
addons? Do GRASS GIS core and GRASS GIS addons considered to operate as
one?

Please note that there is a difference between creating a custom GRASS GIS module and contributing that module to GRASS GIS Addons repository. For “addons” we, at least currently, require 100% compatibility with the “core”, i.e. GPL >=2 (SPDX: GPL-2.0-or-later), to be able to move code freely between these two (without even a need to think about the license at that point and being on the safe site when distributing everything).

https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/2_LegalAspectsOfCodeContributions

If yes,

  1. this would mean that the GPL and the EUPL cannot be combined, in
    the case of GRASS GIS addons.

I agree with Moritz that this would be best answered by those would created EUPL (i.e. some “open source office” in European Commission) or alternatively by Free Software Foundation Europe (https://fsfe.org/).

  1. would the GRASS GIS team consider to add a similar “compatibility
    clause” to effectively make both licenses 100% cross-compatible?

This would count as changing the license. Changing the license would mean getting approval from all past contributors which would be very hard, close to impossible. (Changing to a later version of GPL is of course a different story because of the “or later” part.)

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:39, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:

On 22/10/18 16:33, Nikos Alexandris wrote:
> * Nikos Alexandris <nik@nikosalexandris.net> [2018-10-22 13:51:01 +0200]:
>
>> Is, effectively, the compilation of a GRASS GIS addon, using the above
>> mentioned source code files, considered as "linking into GRASS"?
>
>
> Here the section "Discussion on “Linking" from
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences#section-3
>
> (After an off-list communication with
> https://twitter.com/luis_m_de_sousa, thank you)
>
> It would be nice to have an official answer. or text for these
> questions.

I don't know if anyone of us is a lawyer, so maybe this is something
which should be put before the FSF ?

Also OSGeo could ask to a lawyer, this could be one of the reason
because OSGeo exists

Moritz

--
ciao
Luca

www.lucadelu.org

Dear all,

you may consider the services of Malcolm Bain, who was an invited speaker at FOSS4G Europe:
http://www.id-lawpartners.com/en

I agree with Luca that OSGeo has a role to play in this.

Cheers.

Luís

···

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:39, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:

On 22/10/18 16:33, Nikos Alexandris wrote:

Is, effectively, the compilation of a GRASS GIS addon, using the above
mentioned source code files, considered as “linking into GRASS”?

Here the section “Discussion on “Linking” from
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences#section-3

(After an off-list communication with
https://twitter.com/luis_m_de_sousa, thank you)

It would be nice to have an official answer. or text for these
questions.

I don’t know if anyone of us is a lawyer, so maybe this is something
which should be put before the FSF ?

Also OSGeo could ask to a lawyer, this could be one of the reason
because OSGeo exists

Moritz


ciao
Luca

www.lucadelu.org