The issue here is not helping a non-GPL project. It is helping GRASS and enhancing open source software.
The place where I’ve run into problems most recently is working to develop an interface to make agent based modeling tools available to GRASS and GIS (in GRASS) available to open source agent based modeling platforms. A major system, with which we are working is released under BSD. A very useful interface we’d like to use is (SWIG) released under MIT. Because of the work the ABM folks do and clients they have, they feel that they cannot make their software GPL–although it is open-source licensed. They feel strongly about being open source and about being ethical with regards to licenses–both commendable things. The licensing incompatibility is making it difficult to find a way to make GRASS and Java ABM platforms interact in a useful way. Not impossible, I hope, but it has added a significant layer of complication and considerably restricted the ways in which we can develop this interaction.
I’m not saying that we should make GRASS non-GPL, but hoping that we can find productive avenues to work with other open-source platforms that are not GPL (expanding the user, developer, and support base as well as making GRASS better).
Michael
On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:27 AM, grass5-request@grass.itc.it wrote:
Markus Neteler wrote:
It was an example for existing problems. I have spoken quite a few times to
people who were interested to connect to GRASS, to invest even money into
further GRASS development, but then went away since this didn’t want to
or could not (because they were not owner) publish their piece of software
under GPL.
If they can’t release the combined work under the GPL, that means that
some other code which they wish to use is neither GPL/LGPL nor
BSD/MIT, but under some licence which requires different restrictions
on redistribution (e.g. non-commercial use only).
Personally, I don’t see any reason to assist such projects.
–
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
ASU Exchange wrote:
The issue here is not helping a non-GPL project. It is helping GRASS
and enhancing open source software.
The place where I've run into problems most recently is working to
develop an interface to make agent based modeling tools available to
GRASS and GIS (in GRASS) available to open source agent based
modeling platforms. A major system, with which we are working is
released under BSD. A very useful interface we'd like to use is
(SWIG) released under MIT.
Code which uses the BSD or MIT licences can be combined with LGPL or
GPL code so long as the overall work is released under the LGPL or
GPL.
Because of the work the ABM folks do and
clients they have, they feel that they cannot make their software
GPL --although it is open-source licensed.
What are the terms of their licence?
What is it about the GPL which they find unacceptable? If it's the
prohibition on creating proprietary derivatives, then I don't see any
chance of reaching common ground.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
On Mar 16, 2006, at 7:07 AM, Glynn Clements wrote:
ASU Exchange wrote:
The issue here is not helping a non-GPL project. It is helping GRASS
and enhancing open source software.
The place where I've run into problems most recently is working to
develop an interface to make agent based modeling tools available to
GRASS and GIS (in GRASS) available to open source agent based
modeling platforms. A major system, with which we are working is
released under BSD. A very useful interface we'd like to use is
(SWIG) released under MIT.
Code which uses the BSD or MIT licences can be combined with LGPL or
GPL code so long as the overall work is released under the LGPL or
GPL.
Because of the work the ABM folks do and
clients they have, they feel that they cannot make their software
GPL --although it is open-source licensed.
What are the terms of their licence?
What is it about the GPL which they find unacceptable? If it's the
prohibition on creating proprietary derivatives, then I don't see any
chance of reaching common ground.
I am not sure whether this is the case, but if you are a fed. gov employee
your work should be in public domain and GPL may be too restrictive
for that. So if the tool you develop includes GPLed tools it will have to
be GPL and you may not be allowed to do that.
But you are right that there may not be a good solution to this,
Helena
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
_______________________________________________
grass5 mailing list
grass5@grass.itc.it
http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5
Helena Mitasova wrote:
>> The issue here is not helping a non-GPL project. It is helping GRASS
>> and enhancing open source software.
>>
>> The place where I've run into problems most recently is working to
>> develop an interface to make agent based modeling tools available to
>> GRASS and GIS (in GRASS) available to open source agent based
>> modeling platforms. A major system, with which we are working is
>> released under BSD. A very useful interface we'd like to use is
>> (SWIG) released under MIT.
>
> Code which uses the BSD or MIT licences can be combined with LGPL or
> GPL code so long as the overall work is released under the LGPL or
> GPL.
>
>> Because of the work the ABM folks do and
>> clients they have, they feel that they cannot make their software
>> GPL --although it is open-source licensed.
>
> What are the terms of their licence?
>
> What is it about the GPL which they find unacceptable? If it's the
> prohibition on creating proprietary derivatives, then I don't see any
> chance of reaching common ground.
I am not sure whether this is the case, but if you are a fed. gov employee
your work should be in public domain and GPL may be too restrictive
for that. So if the tool you develop includes GPLed tools it will
have to be GPL and you may not be allowed to do that.
I'm fairly sure that it isn't the case. If it was, the NSA wouldn't
have been able to develop SELinux.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>