License needed!

GRASS GRASS user
1

  GRASS still does not come with a real license [1].
        --------------------------------------------------

In a mail to the developers in May I explained the problems
and suggested that GRASS should be clearly licensed as free software. [2]
After a bit of discussion I formulated another pledge for this cause. [3]
I received feedback from a significant number of people, which shared
my concerns and views in that respect.

The GRASS development team at least clearly stated that they own the
copyright to GRASS, which is an improvement IIRC. But a license
is still needed and it hurds GRASS and the community that it does not
come with a clear free software license.

Markus Neteler and Bruce Byar are well aware of the situation.
The last I heard from it was that they work on the problem with legal=20
help at Baylor. What is the status of this?

Hi Bernhard, dear GRASS-community

in *my* opinion it would be interesting to check if GRASS could
be published unter "Gnu public licence" (GPL). But it is not my
decision. I suggest that you *all* tell us about your opinion.
Perhaps from that we can find out about the general opinion in
the GRASS community and forward this to the copyright holders.

Best regards

Markus Neteler

2

On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Markus Neteler wrote:

in *my* opinion it would be interesting to check if GRASS could be
published unter "Gnu public licence" (GPL). But it is not my decision. I
suggest that you *all* tell us about your opinion. Perhaps from that we
can find out about the general opinion in the GRASS community and forward
this to the copyright holders.

Markus, et al.:

  I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- and this is the first
I've read about this issue. Off the top of my head, and without knowing what
has been discussed before, I agree with the idea that GRASS needs solid
protection. More protection than that provided by a copyright.

  I had the impression that GRASS was distributed under the GPL, but that
this license had some subtle loopholes which were being exploited by
commercial interests. It is in the best interests of all of us users and
developers that GRASS and its source code remain open and readily available.

  Because I live in the midst of the Silicon Forest here in the upper, left
corner of the US, I know that there is a large collection of moss-covered,
high-tech, intellectual property rights attorneys who are running around
chasing after new software. If it's in the groups' interest -- and with the
permission of the powers-that-be -- I can put out some feelers and see if we
can get some pro bono opinions from lawyers in the know.

  If we are going to pursue this topic more, I would greatly appreciate
reading the history: what was the original concern (and why it was raised),
what was written by whom in response, and so on. If this is a valid concern,
then it behooves all of us to do what we can to resolve it in our favor.

Rich

Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President

                       Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
              Making environmentally-responsible mining happen. (SM)
                       --------------------------------
            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

3

On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 07:48:19AM -0700, Rich Shepard wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Markus Neteler wrote:

> in *my* opinion it would be interesting to check if GRASS could be
> published unter "Gnu public licence" (GPL). But it is not my decision.

Whos is it?

> suggest that you *all* tell us about your opinion.

I received several personal emails about it in favour for free software.
Please note that I explained the situation in more detail in the two
mails, I referenced:

http://earth.uni-muenster.de/~eicksch/GRASS-Help/msg02105.html
http://earth.uni-muenster.de/~eicksch/GRASS-Help/msg02195.html

Markus, et al.:

  I'm not a lawyer -- I don't even play one on TV -- and this is the first
I've read about this issue. Off the top of my head, and without knowing what
has been discussed before, I agree with the idea that GRASS needs solid
protection. More protection than that provided by a copyright.

There only two possiblities: copyright a piece of work or release it as
public domain. The former allows you to state the licence under which
it can be used and gives you the possibility to protect it.

You can't do better than that. And now it is a question of the license.

  I had the impression that GRASS was distributed under the GPL, but that
this license had some subtle loopholes which were being exploited by
commercial interests. It is in the best interests of all of us users and
developers that GRASS and its source code remain open and readily available.

GRASS was never distributed under GPL or any other real license as far a
I am aware of it. It once came as public domain, which means, it wasn't
copyrighted and unprotected. That lead to the abuse and locking up of
source code people are generally referring to in the case of GRASS.

  Because I live in the midst of the Silicon Forest here in the upper, left
corner of the US, I know that there is a large collection of moss-covered,
high-tech, intellectual property rights attorneys who are running around
chasing after new software. If it's in the groups' interest -- and with the
permission of the powers-that-be -- I can put out some feelers and see if we
can get some pro bono opinions from lawyers in the know.

I cannot see how that would help. Please read my old articles about that.
The GNU General Public License (GPL) has been contructed by lawyers
for the free software foundation. It is in its second version and the
most proven free software license out there. I am not aware of any loophole.
It is also recognised as the free software license giving most
protection.

  Bernhard
--
Research Assistant, Geog Dept UM-Milwaukee, USA. (www.uwm.edu/~bernhard)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
Intevation GmbH

4

On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Bernhard,

There only two possiblities: copyright a piece of work or release it as
public domain. The former allows you to state the licence under which
it can be used and gives you the possibility to protect it.

That's true. My comments came from my unfortunate experience as a shareware
author. I wrote a DOS database program for personal and small group
libraries. In the year I tracked it, there were over 800 downloads and 1
registration. And this was a copyrighted program, but I found that others
were copying it illegally.

GRASS was never distributed under GPL or any other real license as far a
I am aware of it. It once came as public domain, which means, it wasn't
copyrighted and unprotected. That lead to the abuse and locking up of
source code people are generally referring to in the case of GRASS.

I knew that years ago, GRASS was PD. I assumed -- incorrectly, you tell me
-- that it was not put under the GPL when Baylor took it over. In my
naievity, I would think that the release of version 5 is a very good time to
license it.

I cannot see how that would help. Please read my old articles about that.
The GNU General Public License (GPL) has been contructed by lawyers
for the free software foundation. It is in its second version and the
most proven free software license out there. I am not aware of any loophole.
It is also recognised as the free software license giving most
protection.

  That may well be. From my few discussions with intellectual-property
lawyers, a license without loopholes is like a network without security
issues. It all depends on your point of view.

  Regardless, I vote for putting GRASS under the GPL.

Rich

Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President

                       Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
              Making environmentally-responsible mining happen. (SM)
                       --------------------------------
            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

5

As a Linux user, and as a programmer I absolutely vote for putting GRASS under GPL
copyleft.

I really think that is the best way to protect us in our rights of GRASS users and
developpers. Moreover, as a socio-phylosophical issue, I think it is important to
push the whole computers society toward this approach in viewing at the
intellectual property question.

6

Luca Palmeri wrote:

As a Linux user, and as a programmer I absolutely vote for putting GRASS under GPL
copyleft.

Me too, but I had a mail exchange on this subject with the peoples
at baylor some months ago. The GPL seemed them too weak... I don't
remember exactly why, but it seems that their lawyers were looking
at something more strong about the freedom of Grass.

--
Michel Wurtz ENGEES - CEREG
                1, quai Koch - BP 1039, F-67070 STRASBOURG cedex
                Tel: +33 03.88.24.82.45 Fax: +33 03.88.37.04.97