[GRASS5] Terminology: Free Software

Bernhard_Reiter · October 9, 2001, 5:26pm

Hello Developers,
as you know I am a bit the license and Free Software counsellor
of the GRASS-project. This is the same activity that I do
professionally with my company Intevation.

Recently it occurred to my that most GRASS documentation
talks about "Open Source" instead of "Free Software".
I suggest that we change it to Free Software were appropriate
to lower the chance of missunderstandings.

Let me explain more:

I am fully aware of the long detailed debate about these terminology
issues. As scientists most of us is clear that it is important, though.

Especially in the last year the term "Open Source" is more and more
seen disadvantagous for several reasons.
First of all it was invented as a marketing term for Free Software in 1998
(check http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html)
One of the big personalities behind was Bruce Perens.
They wanted to trademark the term.
As a trademark could not be obtained missuse of the term
started to grow everywhere, based on the assumption that
source code you can look at is enough. Often freedom to modify or
use the source was not granted with what companies called "open source".

After 1.5 years Bruce Perens noticed and left the campaigne with a
note on "Why it is Time to speak about Free Software again",
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/debian-devel-199902/msg01641.html
and since then people have returned more and more to call it
"Free Software" again.

Companies like Alcove for instance only talk about Free Software or
the equivalent Frensh term ("logicals libre")

It is also my personal experience that I can explain Free Software
to users and company officials much easier.
Once people have understood that "free" stands for
freedom (and their freedom to speech, learn, use, compete) they are
thinking along the right track. "open source" takes me a long time,
because I also have to start talking about development models
("open source" is often mixed up with the "bazzar" or open
development model.) and then introduce the freedoms you need from
a license again to make myself clear.

To sum up again: I think we should mostly talk about GRASS as Free Software
and might add a notice at some (rare) places explaining that:
some people call Free Software more missleading "open source".
One link explaining this the relation:
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_refs.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

"In practice, nearly all software meeting one definition also meets
the other."

Note that his remark about the FSF are missing latest information
that the official sister organisation in Europe, the FSFE
sees the term "Free Software" as stressing long term benefits (even
the benefits for companies) of Free Software opposed to short term benefits.

Bernhard
--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

Helena_Mitasova · October 9, 2001, 5:23pm

Bernhard

I would like to offer a little bit different perspective - I just got home
and started to open all junk mail that we get daily. Almost all of it
has something free (those who live in US know what I am talking about).
We are so much flooded here with Free stuff as an integral part of
marketing that I just have the word FREE firmly conected in my
mind with somebody trying to sell me something (e.g. buy one get one free,
get a free gift, free issue of magazine XY, free long distance calls,
free cell phone, and so on, forever). So for me,
free connected with a product, including a software
does not evoke to be free to modify, ..., rather I am getting a sense
that somebody is trying to sell me something and hiding it with the word
free (so you get a free cell phone if you sign a two year contract for the
service or
you get a free software if you sign up with AOL).
So, without knowing what is going on between the free and open software people
and all
the bad stuff around Eric Raymond, I really liked the term based on Open,
because it is not as pervasive and widespread marketing tool as the Free stuff.
Open software
somehow more evokes the term Open society, but all of this is strictly
my personal opinion. So while in some parts of the world and in some
communities
changing to Free software may lower the chance of misunderstanding and it means
going
back to the roots of the movement, it may increase the misunderstanding
elswhere.
I just really resent those AOL CDs which always have the word Free on them
and when you install it you just cannot get rid of it and they keep charging
you the monthly fee.

Helena

P.S. I read some of the links and threads that you have provided - there is
absolutely no
way for anybody outside the free software community to understand what is going
on there,
so if we are going to change from Open source to free software it would require
a lot of
explaining.

Reiter wrote:

Hello Developers,
as you know I am a bit the license and Free Software counsellor
of the GRASS-project. This is the same activity that I do
professionally with my company Intevation.

Recently it occurred to my that most GRASS documentation
talks about "Open Source" instead of "Free Software".
I suggest that we change it to Free Software were appropriate
to lower the chance of missunderstandings.

Let me explain more:

I am fully aware of the long detailed debate about these terminology
issues. As scientists most of us is clear that it is important, though.

Especially in the last year the term "Open Source" is more and more
seen disadvantagous for several reasons.
First of all it was invented as a marketing term for Free Software in 1998
(check http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html)
One of the big personalities behind was Bruce Perens.
They wanted to trademark the term.
As a trademark could not be obtained missuse of the term
started to grow everywhere, based on the assumption that
source code you can look at is enough. Often freedom to modify or
use the source was not granted with what companies called "open source".

After 1.5 years Bruce Perens noticed and left the campaigne with a
note on "Why it is Time to speak about Free Software again",
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/debian-devel-199902/msg01641.html
and since then people have returned more and more to call it
"Free Software" again.

Companies like Alcove for instance only talk about Free Software or
the equivalent Frensh term ("logicals libre")

It is also my personal experience that I can explain Free Software
to users and company officials much easier.
Once people have understood that "free" stands for
freedom (and their freedom to speech, learn, use, compete) they are
thinking along the right track. "open source" takes me a long time,
because I also have to start talking about development models
("open source" is often mixed up with the "bazzar" or open
development model.) and then introduce the freedoms you need from
a license again to make myself clear.

To sum up again: I think we should mostly talk about GRASS as Free Software
and might add a notice at some (rare) places explaining that:
some people call Free Software more missleading "open source".
One link explaining this the relation:
        http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_refs.html
        http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

"In practice, nearly all software meeting one definition also meets
the other."

Note that his remark about the FSF are missing latest information
that the official sister organisation in Europe, the FSFE
sees the term "Free Software" as stressing long term benefits (even
the benefits for companies) of Free Software opposed to short term benefits.

        Bernhard
--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

Bernhard_Reiter · October 9, 2001, 7:34pm

Helena,

thanks for your perspective.
As I wrote, I am well aware of the implications and the different
arguments.

It is my hope to not repeat the debate in full length here.
Still weigthing all arguments for myself I find that talking about
Free Software might be a good idea so I recommend it.

My mail is to find out how other developers like you feel about this.
There are also several in-between-solutions possible.

Some education about the freedom to modify and use
is always needed, so we might as well include the term
in a non persuative way.
GRASS a nice GIS [insert catchy headline for powerful GIS tool]!

   GRASS is also Free Software, giving you the freedom
   to unlimited use, modifcation and distribution of the
   source and binary.

Bernhard

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 12:23:56PM -0500, Helena wrote:

I would like to offer a little bit different perspective - I just got home
and started to open all junk mail that we get daily. Almost all of it
has something free (those who live in US know what I am talking about).
We are so much flooded here with Free stuff as an integral part of
marketing that I just have the word FREE firmly conected in my
mind with somebody trying to sell me something

[snip]

So, without knowing what is going on between the free and open
software people and all the bad stuff around Eric Raymond, I
really liked the term based on Open, because it is not as
pervasive and widespread marketing tool as the Free stuff. Open
software somehow more evokes the term Open society, but all of
this is strictly my personal opinion. So while in some parts of
the world and in some communities changing to Free software may
lower the chance of misunderstanding and it means going back to
the roots of the movement, it may increase the misunderstanding
elswhere.

[snip]

Roger_Miller · October 9, 2001, 4:28pm

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Helena,

thanks for your perspective.
As I wrote, I am well aware of the implications and the different
arguments.

It is my hope to not repeat the debate in full length here.
Still weigthing all arguments for myself I find that talking about
Free Software might be a good idea so I recommend it.

Like Helena, I prefer to continue calling it Open Source software. If you
don't want to repeat some part of an older debate, then you might want to
stop reading now.

My main problem is that "free" software isn't free, and can -- at least in
the short run -- be more expensive than commercial software. I find that
its far easier to explain what "open source" means then it is to explain
the high cost of "free" software.

To use free software, a small company like the one I work for can divert
existing hardware, install a low-cost Linux system then install and
configure the "free" software. The expenditure for hardware and software
is minimal. Most small companies (and individuals) don't have the
expertise to set up a system and configure Linux or to compile and install
the free software. They have to either hire someone with the expertise or
they have to contract a consultant to do the job. That can get very
expensive.

Further, the company has to allow someone the time to learn the software
(there aren't many training courses available) and then provide internal
support for the software, or again hire a consultant to provide support.

And even once a company reaches this point, the "spirit" of open-source
development encourages them to support the ongoing development effort
which again, costs the company money through the time and efforts of it's
employees.

I have essentially donated all the time it took to set up, maintain and
develop a working GRASS installation. I did that partly for personal
reasons. I've never accounted for what it would otherwise have cost my
company. The cost would at least be in the thousands of dollars.

It's my expectation that those costs are short-term costs, and that in the
long term GRASS+gcc+Linux will prove to be less costly than commercial
alternatives. But short-term costs .vs. long-term savings gets to be a
pretty complicated discussion when you're trying to justify something
that's called "free software."

Roger Miller
Lee Wilson and Associates.

Robert_Lagace · October 9, 2001, 9:36pm

Interesting discussion.

Just a few word and a suggestion.

Nothing is free, it always cost something or take some time or energy.
Do not forget the old maxime "there is no free lunch".

The expression "free software" is probably used more often (and also
misused). I like the french expression "logiciel libre". "libre"
is related to freedom not "no cost". But the debate could not
probably be solve by discussion. So, I suggest a modification
to the Bernhard description (or someting simuilar).

        GRASS is Free Software based on open source, giving you
        the freedom to unlimited use, modifcation and distribution
        of the source and binary.

Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Helena,

thanks for your perspective.
As I wrote, I am well aware of the implications and the different
arguments.

It is my hope to not repeat the debate in full length here.
Still weigthing all arguments for myself I find that talking about
Free Software might be a good idea so I recommend it.

My mail is to find out how other developers like you feel about this.
There are also several in-between-solutions possible.

Some education about the freedom to modify and use
is always needed, so we might as well include the term
in a non persuative way.
        GRASS a nice GIS [insert catchy headline for powerful GIS tool]!

         GRASS is also Free Software, giving you the freedom
         to unlimited use, modifcation and distribution of the
         source and binary.

Bernhard

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 12:23:56PM -0500, Helena wrote:
> I would like to offer a little bit different perspective - I just got home
> and started to open all junk mail that we get daily. Almost all of it
> has something free (those who live in US know what I am talking about).
> We are so much flooded here with Free stuff as an integral part of
> marketing that I just have the word FREE firmly conected in my
> mind with somebody trying to sell me something

[snip]

> So, without knowing what is going on between the free and open
> software people and all the bad stuff around Eric Raymond, I
> really liked the term based on Open, because it is not as
> pervasive and widespread marketing tool as the Free stuff. Open
> software somehow more evokes the term Open society, but all of
> this is strictly my personal opinion. So while in some parts of
> the world and in some communities changing to Free software may
> lower the chance of misunderstanding and it means going back to
> the roots of the movement, it may increase the misunderstanding
> elswhere.

[snip]

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

--
Robert Lagacé, professeur
Pavillon Comtois
Université Laval
Ste-Foy, Québec, G1K 7P4
tel : (418)-656-2131#2276
Fax : (418)-656-3723
E-mail : lagace@grr.ulaval.ca

rshepard · October 9, 2001, 10:33pm

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

thanks for your perspective. As I wrote, I am well aware of the
implications and the different arguments.

It is my hope to not repeat the debate in full length here.
Still weigthing all arguments for myself I find that talking about
Free Software might be a good idea so I recommend it.

It ain't official, but why don't we just start using the term,
"unconstrained software"? That avoids the baggage of ambiguous "free" and
"open source". IMO, most people would have no problem intuitively
understanding what is meant by "unconstrained". OTOH, we could use the terms
"modifiable" or "freely-modifiable".

Rich

Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President

                       Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
            2404 SW 22nd Street | Troutdale, OR 97060-1247 | U.S.A.
+ 1 503-667-4517 (voice) | + 1 503-667-8863 (fax) | rshepard@appl-ecosys.com
                         http://www.appl-ecosys.com

Jan-Oliver_Wagner1 · October 10, 2001, 7:02am

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 03:33:04PM -0700, Rich Shepard wrote:

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> thanks for your perspective. As I wrote, I am well aware of the
> implications and the different arguments.
>
> It is my hope to not repeat the debate in full length here.
> Still weigthing all arguments for myself I find that talking about
> Free Software might be a good idea so I recommend it.

It ain't official, but why don't we just start using the term,
"unconstrained software"? That avoids the baggage of ambiguous "free" and
"open source". IMO, most people would have no problem intuitively
understanding what is meant by "unconstrained". OTOH, we could use the terms
"modifiable" or "freely-modifiable".

it is so bad to have already two terms. We shouldn't invent further.
We would spend even more time to explain that the new term
means the same as the old term.

About the fear that people mix up Free Software with 'for free':
Do you really think that the majority of people is so stupid that
they don't realize that Freedom is meant?
I don't. Especially GRASS users are usually quite intelligent
and well-educated.

Jan

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

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

Glynn_Clements · October 10, 2001, 7:54am

Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:

it is so bad to have already two terms. We shouldn't invent further.
We would spend even more time to explain that the new term
means the same as the old term.

Actually, "Open Source" was intended to be a looser definition than
"Free Software". "Open Source" is generally understood to include
BSD/MIT style licences which allow proprietary derivatives, while the
FSF is quite forceful in arguing that such software isn't "Free
Software".

About the fear that people mix up Free Software with 'for free':
Do you really think that the majority of people is so stupid that
they don't realize that Freedom is meant?

I'm not sure that it's fair to call it stupidity. It's much more
common for the word "free" to be used to mean "zero-cost" ("gratis")
than "unconstrained" ("libre").

Those of us who are familiar with Free Software movement are used to
hearing these discussions, the "free as in free speech, not as in free
beer" quotes etc, but most users aren't.

I don't. Especially GRASS users are usually quite intelligent
and well-educated.

But they are frequently geographers etc rather than "geeks" and, as
such, may be quite unfamiliar with these arguments.

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

Jan-Oliver_Wagner1 · October 10, 2001, 8:17am

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:

Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:
> it is so bad to have already two terms. We shouldn't invent further.
> We would spend even more time to explain that the new term
> means the same as the old term.

Actually, "Open Source" was intended to be a looser definition than
"Free Software". "Open Source" is generally understood to include
BSD/MIT style licences which allow proprietary derivatives, while the
FSF is quite forceful in arguing that such software isn't "Free
Software".

Open Source was intended to be a marketing term for Free Software.
It has done harm to the basic ideas. Bruce Perens did realized
the dangers of the term he invented with esr already in early 1999.

The FSF counts software under BSD/MIT and many other licenses
as Free Software. FSF prefers GPL.

> I don't. Especially GRASS users are usually quite intelligent
> and well-educated.

But they are frequently geographers etc rather than "geeks" and, as
such, may be quite unfamiliar with these arguments.

I don't regard Freedom as a matter for geeks.
It is an important element in democratic structures.
Ideally anyone in democratic societies should understand
the idea of Freedom.

With calling the software Free Software I intend to
have people reflect on Freedom (even if they
must first ask the geeks what this terminology is all about).

I know this is aside of the technology aspects,
but I can't help it: I feel responsible
to not let drop democratic ideas in a high-tech-oriented world.
(Sounds pathetic

However, you have the freedom to prefer any term.
I just gave my vote.

Jan

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

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

Markus_Neteler1 · October 10, 2001, 8:58am

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:

Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:

[...]

> I don't. Especially GRASS users are usually quite intelligent
> and well-educated.

But they are frequently geographers etc rather than "geeks" and, as
such, may be quite unfamiliar with these arguments.

Just a small point here: We are mainly addressing people who
*don't* know GRASS, right? Those knowing and using GRASS we don't
have to explain the idea of free software, they are already using
it. The definition is for those who are new to this system
(and who may not want to read all the discussions of the last years).

The "definition" from Robert sounds quite good to me:

        GRASS is Free Software based on open source, giving you
        the freedom to unlimited use, modifcation and distribution
        of the source and binary.

The funny thing is that only
http://www.opensource.org
exists. And they talk about
"Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to
managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the
community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software
certification mark and program."

not about "Free Software", the term "free" doesn't appear here.

BTW:
http://www.freesoftware.org
-> "Free Software Tools features completely free software products
    (developed by Softnik Technologies)"
-> "Please note that we interpret the words free software to mean software
     that costs nothing to obtain (and have no nag screens or
     advertisements). There are other definitions."
Oops.

http://www.free-software.org
-> mhh, even not what we want to see.

Anyway, I feel that the term "free" is biased as Helena and others pointed
out. So above text from Robert may satisfy everybody (I am sure we don't
completely solve the problem here...).

Best regards

Markus Neteler

Bernhard_Reiter · October 10, 2001, 9:45am

Realising that I have started the debate,
I also think that was necessary to bring the issue up.
Hopefully we can keep it at a low temperature.

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:28:56AM -0600, Roger Miller wrote:

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Like Helena, I prefer to continue calling it Open Source software.

Okay.

Let me add that we should not invent other terms or try to introduce them.
It has been done a couple of times and the result was:
You had to explain much more and other possible missunderstandings
popped up.

If you
don't want to repeat some part of an older debate, then you might want to
stop reading now.

There are also some missunderstandings
which I feel the need to address.

My main problem is that "free" software isn't free, and can -- at least in
the short run -- be more expensive than commercial software. I find that
its far easier to explain what "open source" means then it is to explain
the high cost of "free" software.

You understand that "free" in Free Software relates to Freedom.
If you are talking something like "Total cost of ownership"
it is of course a long debate.

For some pointers to study results:
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
Section: Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

Bernhard_Reiter · October 10, 2001, 10:00am

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 05:36:39PM -0400, Robert Lagacé wrote:

So, I suggest a modification
to the Bernhard description (or someting simuilar).

        GRASS is Free Software based on open source, giving you
        the freedom to unlimited use, modifcation and distribution
        of the source and binary.

It includes the assumption that Free Software licenses and open source
licenses are different. This is not true and therefore is missleading.

Jan also pointed out to me that "unlimited use" from my
description might be too unspecific.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:58:01AM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

Just a small point here: We are mainly addressing people who
*don't* know GRASS, right? Those knowing and using GRASS we don't
have to explain the idea of free software, they are already using
it. The definition is for those who are new to this system
(and who may not want to read all the discussions of the last years).

We also have to explain the freedom they have with GRASS to other
GRASS-users. Because of the history of GRASS being Free Software
as public domain and then later having diverted into several
branches of software which a lot is non-free in a subtle way,
a lot of GRASS users do not understand that GRASS now has the
maximum of software freedom.

The "definition" from Robert sounds quite good to me:

Explained a problem with it above.

The funny thing is that only
http://www.opensource.org
exists. And they talk about
"Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to
managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the
community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software
certification mark and program."

not about "Free Software", the term "free" doesn't appear here.

Check the history and the FAQ.
More and more people (insiders, but important developers) get the feeling
that the opensource marketing program got a live on its own.
That's why people like Bruce Perens left.
He said in a recent LinuxMagazin(? US based)-interview that
he feels it goes in the wrong direction.

BTW:
http://www.freesoftware.org
http://www.free-software.org

[Bad examples of the use of free with software]

Anyway, I feel that the term "free" is biased as Helena and others pointed
out. So above text from Robert may satisfy everybody (I am sure we don't
completely solve the problem here...).

So is open source.
I don't want to bring up all the abuse-cases.

Bernhard

--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

Roger_Bivand · October 10, 2001, 10:06am

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Realising that I have started the debate,
I also think that was necessary to bring the issue up.
Hopefully we can keep it at a low temperature.

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:28:56AM -0600, Roger Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> Like Helena, I prefer to continue calling it Open Source software.

Let me add that we should not invent other terms or try to introduce them.
It has been done a couple of times and the result was:
You had to explain much more and other possible missunderstandings
popped up.

> My main problem is that "free" software isn't free, and can -- at least in
> the short run -- be more expensive than commercial software. I find that
> its far easier to explain what "open source" means then it is to explain
> the high cost of "free" software.

You understand that "free" in Free Software relates to Freedom.
If you are talking something like "Total cost of ownership"
it is of course a long debate.

For some pointers to study results:

A further point of some weight is that GRASS moved from an
"unconstrained" license as of 4.2 (often no license?) to GPL as of 4.3 and
5.*. As I read the GPL, it seems more natural to use the term used there,
despite the difficulties this may engender (we are using LGPL on some
parts of the code, aren't we - there the constraints are fewer). GPL is
actually quite constraining, and with reason. So a formal description is:

"The Geographic Resources Analysis and Support System (GRASS)
Geographic Information System (GIS) is Copyright by the
GRASS Development Team headquartered at Baylor University,
in Waco, Texas.

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version."

as in ./COPYING

Roger

--
Roger Bivand
Economic Geography Section, Department of Economics, Norwegian School of
Economics and Business Administration, Breiviksveien 40, N-5045 Bergen,
Norway. voice: +47 55 95 93 55; fax +47 55 95 93 93
e-mail: Roger.Bivand@nhh.no
and: Department of Geography and Regional Development, University of
Gdansk, al. Mar. J. Pilsudskiego 46, PL-81 378 Gdynia, Poland.

Bernhard_Reiter · October 10, 2001, 10:22am

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:06:09PM +0200, Roger Bivand wrote:

A further point of some weight is that GRASS moved from an
"unconstrained" license as of 4.2 (often no license?) to GPL as of 4.3 and
5.*.

Having no license usually means the defaul that you do not have permission
to do anything with the software. The situation was unclear,
speaking of "unconstrained" does not hit the point.

As I read the GPL, it seems more natural to use the term used there,
despite the difficulties this may engender (we are using LGPL on some
parts of the code, aren't we - there the constraints are fewer). GPL is
actually quite constraining, and with reason.

The debate about constrains is not the best way talking about it.
To ensure a maximum in freedom as in any democratic society you
have to restrict abuse of other people's freedoms.
To stress the anology: Nobody would think the outruling of slavery
as a constrain.

So a formal description is:

"The Geographic Resources Analysis and Support System (GRASS)
Geographic Information System (GIS) is Copyright by the
GRASS Development Team headquartered at Baylor University,
in Waco, Texas.

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version."

as in ./COPYING

It is correct, except that the development of the 5.x versions
basically were based in Hannover, lead my Markus Neteler and
are now based in Trento, Italy, still lead my Markus.

However this version is long and does not explain that a lot of people
call Free Software "open source".

*still scrating head about a good version*

--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

Markus_Neteler1 · October 10, 2001, 11:33am

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:22:11PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:06:09PM +0200, Roger Bivand wrote:

[...]

> So a formal description is:

> "The Geographic Resources Analysis and Support System (GRASS)
> Geographic Information System (GIS) is Copyright by the
> GRASS Development Team headquartered at Baylor University,
> in Waco, Texas.
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
> Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
> option) any later version."
>
> as in ./COPYING

It is correct, except that the development of the 5.x versions
basically were based in Hannover, lead my Markus Neteler and
are now based in Trento, Italy, still lead my Markus.

However this version is long and does not explain that a lot of people
call Free Software "open source".

A suggestion in general:
- we should change the phrase on the web page to something better
- we should also change the GRASS login message which doesn't
reflect the structure of the team.
- I don't mind to skip "headquarter", maybe we use the URL instead
"GRASS is available at: http://…"

As also suggested by Roger Bivand (personal mail), we should have
a look at the phrases used by "R". Their project has a similar structure
with developers spreaded everywhere.

Roger Bivand wrote:
[...]
R uses a Development Core Team, and says:

"The bulk of this code is copyright by members of or all of the R
Development Core Team.

See the file COPYING for the exact conditions under which you may
redistribute it."
[...]

This is simple, but better than what we currently have.

Just my 0.02 Euro,

Markus