[GRASS5] New info on openDWG

Some months back I brought up the lack of DXF support in GRASS 5.7. The
ensuing discussion pointed out that the best way to support DXF was through
openDWG libraries. But because of licensing concerns with these libraries,
the GRASS module v.in.dwg could not be distributed with the libraries. Any
user needed to join the Open Design Alliance (free as an Associate Member),
download openDWG, put the libraries into v.in.dwg, and compile GRASS with
v.in.dwg.

Last night I looked at the Open Design Alliance (formerly openDWG Alliance)
web site to see what was involved in doing this. To my surprise, their web
site description of Associate Member terms and conditions permitted the
distribution of the libraries in software that is distributed free of
charge. This certainly fits GRASS. However, when I downloaded the form I had
to sign and send them to complete my membership application, it did not
mention that the libraries could be distributed in free-of-charge software.

I thought I'd email someone at Open Design Alliance and ask them to clarify
this. But when I checked the contacts page, I found that the alliance is
headquartered here in the Phoenix area, where I am.

So I called them this morning. I had a good discussion with Aaron Dahlberg,
membership coordinator with the Open Design Alliance. He assured me that the
alliance's intent was only to restrict or control commercial use of their
libraries, not use in educational or free software. I described GRASS and he
felt that--based on my description--this fit their intent to permit openDWG
to be used in non-commercial applications developed by Associate Members. I
encouraged him to visit the GRASS web site and he said he would do so.

I asked him if he could reiterate all this in an email so I'd have it in
writing. He said he had answered similar questions before and would send me
something. I copied it to Markus this morning. This evening, I received my
Open Design Alliance membership and password with another email, from Pat
Smith (another membership coordinator at the alliance), along with further
clarification of the terms and conditions. I include it here.

Dear New Associate Member :

I have given you access to the DWG files according to the Associate Member
Agreement. We allow access to our libraries for research purposes and
development of free or internally used software only.

Unless there is some catch to the GRASS GPL license that I am missing (quite
possible, I suppose, given my lack of legal expertise), I think we can
distribute openDWG libraries with GRASS as long as we don't sell GRASS
commercially--something prohibited by the GPL license.

I'd like to reopen discussion about whether we can include a functional
v.in.dwg in GRASS 5.7 under these circumstances. In my conversation with the
alliance this morning, Aaron was clear that this was not a problem. I've
included below the complete (longish) text of my email correspondence with
the alliance today.

For those of you are have worked closely with relevant licensing issues,
what do you think?

Michael

____________________
C. Michael Barton, Professor
School of Human Diversity and Social Change
PO Box 872402
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
USA

Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671
www: <www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton>

- - - - emails with ODA start here - - - -

------ Forwarded Message

From: ODA Membership Coordinator <pat@opendesign.com>
Organization: Open Design Alliance
Reply-To: <pat@opendesign.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:45:17 -0700
To: 'Michael Barton' <michael.barton@asu.edu>
Subject: Approved Associate Member DWGdirect - Barton, Michael

Dear New Associate Member :

I have given you access to the DWG files according to the Associate Member
Agreement. We allow access to our libraries for research purposes and
development of free or internally used software only. You are required to
upgrade to either a Commercial Associate Member or Sustaining Member before
you can sell or distribute software with our libraries in it.

Your login is: michael.barton@asu.edu

I have attached a PDF of your counter signed Membership Agreement.

Also, just a reminder that you are the only person permitted to use your
login. You are solely responsible for anything that is downloaded using this
login.

Sincerely,

Pat Smith
Membership Coordinator
Open Design Alliance
(Formerly OpenDWG Alliance)
5025 N. Central Avenue #602
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Tel#602-263-7666
Fax#602-263-5578
E-Mail:pat@opendesign.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Barton [mailto:michael.barton@asu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:45 AM
To: pat@opendesign.com
Cc: Markus Neteler
Subject: Re: Per our conversation 8/26/04 - OpenDWG

On 8/26/04 9:26 AM, "ODA Membership Coordinator" <pat@opendesign.com> wrote:

Dear Michael:

Please provide more information on how your plan to include or if you
plan to include our libraries in your Free Ware/Shareware product.

I have also included a couple of simple guideline to follow in regards
to using our libraries in Freeware/Shareware

- Whoever owns a "member application" must be an Alliance member.
Ownership is typically determined by copyright and distribution
rights.

Aaron,

Thanks very much for talking with me today and for sending this
clarification. I hope you have a chance to look at the GRASS website. It is
indeed an opensource program, freely distributed over the internet (as
described in the description of Associate Member terms and conditions on the
Open Design Alliance). It is widely used internationally with recent
estimates of a user base at 20-30K worldwide (though because this is freely
distributed open source, it is difficult to estimate this accurately)

GRASS certainly fits the next paragraph.

- Freeware applications, eligible for distribution under the Associate
membership agreement, can not be adjuncts to commercial sales. This
would include premiums and programs with proprietary functionality.

From these rules, we can suggest the following scenarios:

If it is your customer who is contracting for the product, and they
wish to have unlimited rights to it, then they are the ones who must
be the Alliance member. You would be a contract developer, with your
customer holding copyright, source code, and IP rights subject to the
terms of their Alliance membership.

The following scenario fits GRASS I believe.

It is possible under this scenario for the product to be an Associate
(Freeware) application, but it would require that the product be
offered freely to anyone (on an open and searchable web page), and
that the product could not be an adjunct to a commercial transaction.
(One way to measure this would be: Would customers or potential
customers of application's owner find it to be of more use than
non-customers would?)

Here is the introductory description paragraph at the top of the GRASS main
web site <http://grass.itc.i>.

RASS GIS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is an open source,
Free Software Geographical Information System (GIS) with raster, topological
vector, image processing, and graphics production functionality that
operates on various platforms through a graphical user interface and shell
in X-Window. It is released under GNU General Public License (GPL).

The GNU GPL site (with full license information) is at:
<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html&gt;

Perhaps the most relevant section of the GPL is:

. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code
as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of
the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you
also meet all of these conditions:

    * a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    * b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under
the terms of this License.

    * c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the
most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an
appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or
else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute
the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy
of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does
not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is
not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections
as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
regardless of who wrote it.

Alternately, you might choose to develop the product, and then license
it to your customer for a fee. In that case, the software would have
your copyright (not the customer's), and would need to be licensed to
them in such a fashion that, if you cease being a member of the
Alliance, the software will no longer be distributed. (Notwithstanding
this limitation, seats currently being utilized -- by the customer or
other end-users -- could continue to be utilized.) In this case, the
distribution of the software is treated as is typical of most
commercial software, and is subject to the requirements of our
commercial level memberships. If you license up to 100 copies of the
software per agreement year to your customer, you would be eligible to
be a Commercial Associate members of the Alliance. If you wanted to
license more than 100 copies per year, you would need to be a
Sustaining member of the Alliance. In any event, your customer,
having licensed a certain number of copies from you at a time, would
then be able to redistribute those copies to its customers.

I realize this is a lot of detail, but it's probably necessary for you
to make a choice about what direction to take.

Please let me know what directions that you would like to go?

Thank you for your cooperation,

Aaron Dahlberg
Membership Coordinator
Open Design Alliance
5025 N. Central Avenue #602
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Tel#602-263-7666
Fax#602-263-5578
E-Mail:pat@opendesign.com

Given this, what do you think? I am now (hopefully) an associate member.
Certainly, others of the development team can become associate members to
make sure that there remains a valid user license for the openDWG libraries
among the development group.

In this situation, can we distribute these libraries with GRASS?

I am copying Markus Neteler, head of the GRASS international development
team to make sure he is in the loop on this. There was considerable
discussion about the use of openDWG libraries earlier this year and some
confusion about the terms and conditions of the use of these libraries. As I
mentioned, I think part of the difficulty comes from the fact that, unlike
the website and your email here, the form that associate members sign does
not mention free distribution over the internet. The GRASS team is very
conscientious about proper licensing and preferred to err on the side of
being conservative. However, if indeed we can distribute the libraries with
GRASS it would make it much easier to link the CAD and GIS worlds.

Thanks again for your help
Michael

______________________________
Michael Barton, Professor & Curator
School of Human Diversity and Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
USA

voice: 480-965-6262; fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

Michael,

I am certainly no expert on this, but you seem to err in one point:

[...]

He assured me that
the
alliance's intent was only to restrict or control commercial use of their
libraries, not use in educational or free software. I described GRASS and
he
felt that--based on my description--this fit their intent to permit
openDWG
to be used in non-commercial applications developed by Associate Members.

[...]

Unless there is some catch to the GRASS GPL license that I am missing
(quite
possible, I suppose, given my lack of legal expertise), I think we can
distribute openDWG libraries with GRASS as long as we don't sell GRASS
commercially--something prohibited by the GPL license.

The GPL in no way prohibits commercial distribution of software (look at
all the GNU/Linux Distributions that sell GPL'd software). Free in the
sense of free software (and in the sense of the GPL), does not mean
non-commercial, it means the freedom to access, modify and redistribute
modified version of the source code. But you have every right to sell
GPL'd software, including.

So some people might want to sell GRASS, but if there is a v.in.dwg this
would not be legal with an associative membership of the Open Design
Alliance. Their system is incompatible with the GPL since it takes away
the freedom to do as they wish with the software. This is why including it
in the distribution would limit GRASS in a way deemed inacceptable for
many developers.

I hope that those who know better than me will correct any mistakes in the
above...

Moritz

Hi,

talking about this 'only for non-commercial use' stuff,
please all be aware, that this definition is extremely
fuzzy and poses high risk for anyone who uses software with
this limitation!

Especially universities are not anymore pure non-commercial.
They have a lot 3rd-party projects and some are even
running on their own taking money from the students. I regard
that commercial for instance.

A long list could be appended here on similar examples.

The conclusion must be never to use software with the limitation
'not for commercial use' as you always take the risk of legal
trouble that could cost you a lot of money.

BTW, the same applies, especially in GIS, for phrase like
'not for military use'. There is also no definition for this!

Best

  Jan

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:59:03AM +0200, Moritz Lennert wrote:

The GPL in no way prohibits commercial distribution of software (look at
all the GNU/Linux Distributions that sell GPL'd software). Free in the
sense of free software (and in the sense of the GPL), does not mean
non-commercial, it means the freedom to access, modify and redistribute
modified version of the source code. But you have every right to sell
GPL'd software, including.

So some people might want to sell GRASS, but if there is a v.in.dwg this
would not be legal with an associative membership of the Open Design
Alliance. Their system is incompatible with the GPL since it takes away
the freedom to do as they wish with the software. This is why including it
in the distribution would limit GRASS in a way deemed inacceptable for
many developers.

--
Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/

Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/

Moritz Lennert wrote:

> He assured me that
> the
> alliance's intent was only to restrict or control commercial use of their
> libraries, not use in educational or free software. I described GRASS and
> he
> felt that--based on my description--this fit their intent to permit
> openDWG
> to be used in non-commercial applications developed by Associate Members.

[...]

> Unless there is some catch to the GRASS GPL license that I am missing
> (quite
> possible, I suppose, given my lack of legal expertise), I think we can
> distribute openDWG libraries with GRASS as long as we don't sell GRASS
> commercially--something prohibited by the GPL license.

The GPL in no way prohibits commercial distribution of software (look at
all the GNU/Linux Distributions that sell GPL'd software). Free in the
sense of free software (and in the sense of the GPL), does not mean
non-commercial, it means the freedom to access, modify and redistribute
modified version of the source code. But you have every right to sell
GPL'd software, including.

So some people might want to sell GRASS, but if there is a v.in.dwg this
would not be legal with an associative membership of the Open Design
Alliance. Their system is incompatible with the GPL since it takes away
the freedom to do as they wish with the software. This is why including it
in the distribution would limit GRASS in a way deemed inacceptable for
many developers.

More importantly, anyone who distributed a v.in.dwg executable would
be violating the copyright on either:

a) the OpenDWG code, or
b) any GPL'd code which v.in.dwg used (e.g. libgis).

depending upon the terms under which it was distributed. If it was
distributed under the GPL, a) would apply; if it was distributed in
accordance with the OpenDWG terms, b) would apply.

The GPL doesn't allow you to impose additional restrictions, e.g.
"only for non-commercial use", while the OpenDWG terms appear to
require such restrictions. Consequently, it doesn't appear possible to
produce something which would satisfy both licences.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

On Friday 27 August 2004 10:36, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:

Hi,

talking about this 'only for non-commercial use' stuff,

OpenDWG lib IS NOT restricted for non-commercial use.
It is not possible to sell applications (SW) using OpenDWG lib,
which was acquired for free. It IS possible to use
such application for any work without other restrictions.

Radim

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:50:40AM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:

On Friday 27 August 2004 10:36, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:
> talking about this 'only for non-commercial use' stuff,

OpenDWG lib IS NOT restricted for non-commercial use.
It is not possible to sell applications (SW) using OpenDWG lib,
which was acquired for free. It IS possible to use
such application for any work without other restrictions.

where do I read about the definition of 'non-commercial'?

If you find one, is it the one the license writers meant?
And is it the one applicable for the regional law where
someone may want to sue you?

All I am saying is that there are no answers on this and
that you take a high risk by interpreting your acitivities
as non-commercial yourself.

  Jan

--
Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/

Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:05:08PM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:

So I called them this morning. I had a good discussion with Aaron Dahlberg,
membership coordinator with the Open Design Alliance. He assured me that the
alliance's intent was only to restrict or control commercial use of their
libraries, not use in educational or free software.

From the other answer it should be clear that this contradicts itself.
Free Software includes the freedom to you the software
for commcerial purposes.
So the main problem is that the alliance does not publish Free Software
and by that restricting its use in education and science.

> Dear New Associate Member :
>
> I have given you access to the DWG files according to the Associate Member
> Agreement. We allow access to our libraries for research purposes and
> development of free or internally used software only.

They probably mean gratis proprietary software.

Unless there is some catch to the GRASS GPL license that I am missing (quite
possible, I suppose, given my lack of legal expertise), I think we can
distribute openDWG libraries with GRASS as long as we don't sell GRASS
commercially--something prohibited by the GPL license.

I'd like to reopen discussion about whether we can include a functional
v.in.dwg in GRASS 5.7 under these circumstances. In my conversation with the
alliance this morning, Aaron was clear that this was not a problem. I've
included below the complete (longish) text of my email correspondence with
the alliance today.

For those of you are have worked closely with relevant licensing issues,
what do you think?

I guess that Mr. Dahlberg does not know what Free Software is
and what the implications for education are.
It might be helpful to explain it to him.
Chances are low that they share the interest here so we might think
about putting more political pressure on them if we can.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Barton [mailto:michael.barton@asu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:45 AM
> To: pat@opendesign.com
> Cc: Markus Neteler
> Subject: Re: Per our conversation 8/26/04 - OpenDWG

> On 8/26/04 9:26 AM, "ODA Membership Coordinator" <pat@opendesign.com> wrote:

> GRASS certainly fits the next paragraph.
>
>> - Freeware applications, eligible for distribution under the Associate
>> membership agreement, can not be adjuncts to commercial sales. This
>> would include premiums and programs with proprietary functionality.

No, GRASS does not fit that description.

On Monday 30 August 2004 12:19, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:50:40AM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> On Friday 27 August 2004 10:36, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:
> > talking about this 'only for non-commercial use' stuff,
>
> OpenDWG lib IS NOT restricted for non-commercial use.
> It is not possible to sell applications (SW) using OpenDWG lib,
> which was acquired for free. It IS possible to use
> such application for any work without other restrictions.

where do I read about the definition of 'non-commercial'?

If you find one, is it the one the license writers meant?
And is it the one applicable for the regional law where
someone may want to sue you?

All I am saying is that there are no answers on this and
that you take a high risk by interpreting your acitivities
as non-commercial yourself.

But OpenDWG DOES NOT have any restriction like 'only for non-commercial'!
You are trying to make an impression that OpenDWG is only
for 'non-commercial', I just pointed out that it is not true.
I don't care about definition of 'non-commercial', I don't need that.

Also, I would never develop a module for GRASS which I and others cannot
_use_ without restrictions.

Radim

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 01:59:57PM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:

But OpenDWG DOES NOT have any restriction like 'only for non-commercial'!
You are trying to make an impression that OpenDWG is only
for 'non-commercial', I just pointed out that it is not true.
I don't care about definition of 'non-commercial', I don't need that.

I don't try to make an impression. It is the impression I got myself:

In his email Michael cited the OpenDWG web site with the
phrase "... permitted the distribution of the libraries in
software that is distributed free of charge."

Thats what I set equal to non-commercial. Well, debatable.

Furthermore, Michael cited a phone conversation with Aaron Dahlberg
of the Open Design Alliance: "He assured me that
the alliance's intent was only to restrict or control commercial use of
their libraries, not use in educational or free software."

It's debatable, but I would say that Mr. Dahlberg does not
know the definition of Free Software and would not have inlcuded
Free Software in his statement. I am pretty sure he meant proprietary
gratis software (aka freeware).

The rest of the statement of Mr. Dahlberg supports my impression
regarding the aspect of "non-commercial".

I would be happy to learn that indeed OpenDWG can be used
for commercial Free Software projects!
(I don't have the time to find out myself).

--
Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/

Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/

re. Michael's suggestion that if OpenDWG can't be included in
distributions of GRASS then maybe a non-GPL standalone translator app is
called for, as we can't reasonably expect everyone who needs DXF support
to be able to compile for themselves (even if it would be good for them
and make them better human beings etc).

OGR seems like the natural place for this to happen.

The problem then moves to finding someone qualified to do it or finding
the money to pay Frank to do it..

http://xserve.flids.com/pipermail/gdal-dev/2002-November/002929.html

Or find some libreware saviour to write a LGPL dwg library from scratch.
:slight_smile:

Hamish

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:50:56AM +1200, Hamish wrote:

re. Michael's suggestion that if OpenDWG can't be included in
distributions of GRASS then maybe a non-GPL standalone translator app is
called for,

GNU/Linux distributions cannot distribute application
using OpenDWG because those libraries are non-free software
and not allowed to be used commercially.
(http://www.opendesign.com/downloads/guest.htm
  Open Design Alliance members have created the following free
  utilities, based on the OpenDWG Libraries, for your unrestricted,
  non-commercial use. Please note that inclusion of any utility in a
  commercial product does require commercial licensing,
)

and GNU/Linux distributions are mostly considered commercial.

as we can't reasonably expect everyone who needs DXF support
to be able to compile for themselves (even if it would be good for them
and make them better human beings etc).

We should point that problem out more prominently
to get more people to
  - put pressure on OpenDWG
  - give money so a Free Software DWG library can be written
  or improved
  - helping writing the library.

OGR seems like the natural place for this to happen.

The problem then moves to finding someone qualified to do it or finding
the money to pay Frank to do it..

http://xserve.flids.com/pipermail/gdal-dev/2002-November/002929.html

Or find some libreware saviour to write a LGPL dwg library from scratch.

A couple of thoughts.

Actually the Open Design Alliance licensing strategy is not all that
confusing. Basically, if you want to sell a piece of software that uses the
libraries or other utilities that they have written, you can do so. You just
need to pay them a licensing fee for making a profit from their software. If
you choose to use their software and not pay them a license fee, you cannot
sell your software either.

I don't think their license is problematic in and of itself, and thought
that this kind of license might be compatible with the way GRASS is
distributed, and worth asking about. But general consensus seems to be that
it is not compatible with the GRASS license and distribution. I think (and
told Alan) that they should update the legalese of the membership
application to better match their licensing goals as stated on their
website. However, this would not change the issues raised by many people who
responded to my question.

While it is unfortunate that GRASS cannot make use of openDWG more
extensively than it now does, I am glad that the people who create and
manage the GRASS project are conscientious enough about proper licensing to
consider this as thoroughly as they have. This is important to the people
who use GRASS. Given the many comments, it seems that the safest courses are
those Hamish mentioned, to work out something within GRASS or in OGR.
However, if there is any kind of consensus about communicating with the
alliance about ways to work with the GRASS project, I am happy to help in
any way I can since they are HQ'ed here in my neighborhood.

Michael

On 8/30/04 3:19 AM, "Jan-Oliver Wagner" <jan@intevation.de> wrote:

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:50:40AM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:

On Friday 27 August 2004 10:36, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:

talking about this 'only for non-commercial use' stuff,

OpenDWG lib IS NOT restricted for non-commercial use.
It is not possible to sell applications (SW) using OpenDWG lib,
which was acquired for free. It IS possible to use
such application for any work without other restrictions.

where do I read about the definition of 'non-commercial'?

If you find one, is it the one the license writers meant?
And is it the one applicable for the regional law where
someone may want to sue you?

All I am saying is that there are no answers on this and
that you take a high risk by interpreting your acitivities
as non-commercial yourself.

Jan

--
Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/

Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/

____________________
C. Michael Barton, Professor
School of Human Diversity and Social Change
PO Box 872402
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
USA

Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671
www: <www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton>

Somebody who knows the Open Design Alliance people may want to talk with
them about cygwin-style licensing (which is compatible with GRASS, open
source, and free software). Cygwin is offered under the GPL (with all
those rights and responsibilities), and is also sold under a commercial
license, for people who want to write /proprietary/ software. Thus,
people who want to sell open source or free software for a profit don't
have to pay, but people who want to sell proprietary software need to
pay for the privilege to keep their software proprietary.

Another famous company that uses this model is MySQL AB. There are
dozens of others (though I don't have those names at my fingertips
because MySQL is such a good example).

Note: when MySQL changed their licensing terms to impinge upon Red Hat's
ability to distribute with our free distribution, we stayed back at an
earlier version. MySQL has since fixed this problem, and I believe
we'll be moving forward again. Many other companies have attempted to
fine-tune their licenses to "take a piece" of open source revenues, and
the history seems to indicate that that's doomed to fail. However,
there's great benefit to being part of a major open source package, and
these companies are learning how to play within the rules, not try to
change them.

M

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 01:03, Michael Barton wrote:

A couple of thoughts.

Actually the Open Design Alliance licensing strategy is not all that
confusing. Basically, if you want to sell a piece of software that uses the
libraries or other utilities that they have written, you can do so. You just
need to pay them a licensing fee for making a profit from their software. If
you choose to use their software and not pay them a license fee, you cannot
sell your software either.

I don't think their license is problematic in and of itself, and thought
that this kind of license might be compatible with the way GRASS is
distributed, and worth asking about. But general consensus seems to be that
it is not compatible with the GRASS license and distribution. I think (and
told Alan) that they should update the legalese of the membership
application to better match their licensing goals as stated on their
website. However, this would not change the issues raised by many people who
responded to my question.

While it is unfortunate that GRASS cannot make use of openDWG more
extensively than it now does, I am glad that the people who create and
manage the GRASS project are conscientious enough about proper licensing to
consider this as thoroughly as they have. This is important to the people
who use GRASS. Given the many comments, it seems that the safest courses are
those Hamish mentioned, to work out something within GRASS or in OGR.
However, if there is any kind of consensus about communicating with the
alliance about ways to work with the GRASS project, I am happy to help in
any way I can since they are HQ'ed here in my neighborhood.

Michael

On 8/30/04 3:19 AM, "Jan-Oliver Wagner" <jan@intevation.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:50:40AM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
>> On Friday 27 August 2004 10:36, Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:
>>> talking about this 'only for non-commercial use' stuff,
>>
>> OpenDWG lib IS NOT restricted for non-commercial use.
>> It is not possible to sell applications (SW) using OpenDWG lib,
>> which was acquired for free. It IS possible to use
>> such application for any work without other restrictions.
>
> where do I read about the definition of 'non-commercial'?
>
> If you find one, is it the one the license writers meant?
> And is it the one applicable for the regional law where
> someone may want to sue you?
>
> All I am saying is that there are no answers on this and
> that you take a high risk by interpreting your acitivities
> as non-commercial yourself.
>
> Jan
>
> --
> Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/
>
> Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
> FreeGIS http://freegis.org/
>

____________________
C. Michael Barton, Professor
School of Human Diversity and Social Change
PO Box 872402
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
USA

Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671
www: <www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton>

_______________________________________________
grass5 mailing list
grass5@grass.itc.it
http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:03:02PM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:

Actually the Open Design Alliance licensing strategy is not all that
confusing. Basically, if you want to sell a piece of software that uses the
libraries or other utilities that they have written, you can do so. You just
need to pay them a licensing fee for making a profit from their software. If
you choose to use their software and not pay them a license fee, you cannot
sell your software either.

It is not confusing, but unfriendly to Free Software like GRASS.

I don't think their license is problematic in and of itself, and thought
that this kind of license might be compatible with the way GRASS is
distributed, and worth asking about. But general consensus seems to be that
it is not compatible with the GRASS license and distribution.

I think it was a very good idea from you to go and ask about it.
It seem though that the Open Design Alliance is not just incompatible
with GRASS and its license, but also more general with with Free Software.

While it is unfortunate that GRASS cannot make use of openDWG more
extensively than it now does, I am glad that the people who create and
manage the GRASS project are conscientious enough about proper licensing to
consider this as thoroughly as they have. This is important to the people
who use GRASS.

Yes it is very important. Before 1999 GRASS was loosing trust
of many users because there were not clear licensing terms.
Since then GRASS has regained a lot of trust and a few developers.

However, if there is any kind of consensus about communicating with the
alliance about ways to work with the GRASS project, I am happy to help in
any way I can since they are HQ'ed here in my neighborhood.

I would consider you part of the GRASS project.
Most people working on GRASS are Free Software people and it would
might interesting to explain the benefit of Free Software to them.
Unless the alliance seriously looks into being friendly to Free Software
there is not much that can be done.

Regards,
  Bernhard

Bernard,

Thanks for the insightful comments and the kind words. I will try to talk
with the Open Design Alliance folks in the next week or two when I have a
bit of time during normal hours.

Beyond Michael Tiemann's helpful suggestion about looking at the Cygwin and
MySQL models, do you have any recommendations I could pass on to them as to
how they might change their license to be more Free Software friendly, while
still keeping the option (which I assume they want) to charge a fee to
people who want to sell commercial software using their libraries?
(Apparently the latter include ESRI and some fairly big CAD firms, though
not AutoDesk)

Michael

On 9/1/04 7:05 AM, "Bernhard Reiter" <bernhard@intevation.de> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:03:02PM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:

Actually the Open Design Alliance licensing strategy is not all that
confusing. Basically, if you want to sell a piece of software that uses the
libraries or other utilities that they have written, you can do so. You just
need to pay them a licensing fee for making a profit from their software. If
you choose to use their software and not pay them a license fee, you cannot
sell your software either.

It is not confusing, but unfriendly to Free Software like GRASS.

I don't think their license is problematic in and of itself, and thought
that this kind of license might be compatible with the way GRASS is
distributed, and worth asking about. But general consensus seems to be that
it is not compatible with the GRASS license and distribution.

I think it was a very good idea from you to go and ask about it.
It seem though that the Open Design Alliance is not just incompatible
with GRASS and its license, but also more general with with Free Software.

While it is unfortunate that GRASS cannot make use of openDWG more
extensively than it now does, I am glad that the people who create and
manage the GRASS project are conscientious enough about proper licensing to
consider this as thoroughly as they have. This is important to the people
who use GRASS.

Yes it is very important. Before 1999 GRASS was loosing trust
of many users because there were not clear licensing terms.
Since then GRASS has regained a lot of trust and a few developers.

However, if there is any kind of consensus about communicating with the
alliance about ways to work with the GRASS project, I am happy to help in
any way I can since they are HQ'ed here in my neighborhood.

I would consider you part of the GRASS project.
Most people working on GRASS are Free Software people and it would
might interesting to explain the benefit of Free Software to them.
Unless the alliance seriously looks into being friendly to Free Software
there is not much that can be done.

Regards,
Bernhard

--
Michael Barton, Professor
School of Human Origins, Cultures, & Society
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287

Web - http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:41:01PM -0700, Michael Barton wrote:

Beyond Michael Tiemann's helpful suggestion about looking at the Cygwin and
MySQL models, do you have any recommendations I could pass on to them as to
how they might change their license to be more Free Software friendly, while
still keeping the option (which I assume they want) to charge a fee to
people who want to sell commercial software using their libraries?
(Apparently the latter include ESRI and some fairly big CAD firms, though
not AutoDesk)

I think, the concepts, Micheal Tiemann described are the only
ones that the Alliance might accept as a first approach.
This way, some of the advantages of Free Software can not
be gained, but the primary goal of them, to allow proprietary
integration via licenses, would be met very nicely. And in fact,
this model seems to be perfectly in line with their current
aims and policy.

I'd suggest to apply the GNU GPL license for the software.
This way, only Free Software products under GNU GPL itself
could use the library. If they would choose GNU LGPL, proprietary
products could link the library without the special licensing.

However, you should not forget that Free Software is also
commcercial software on demand:
http://www.intevation.de/~jan/infos/dont_oppose_commercial_and_free_software.en.html

Best

  Jan
--
Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/

Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/