Hi, as Hamish put me in the loop, here is my comment on the licensing issue. On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 03:37:02PM +1300, Hamish wrote: > [re. grass57 Debian package] > > 6. copyright file. I removed a bunch of stuff in here that referred to > > files that were copyright people other than the grass development > > team. I think at the time that I was thinking everything was GPL and > > there wasn't a need for this. But maybe these should be looked over to > > see if they still apply. > > As far as I understand it, everything that has been merged into 5.7 > should be GPL or free-er (e.g. surviving USACE code is without > copyright). Yes all files within grass 5.7.x. should be under GNU GPL compatible licenes. Not all of them are directly under the GNU GPL, but this is not a problem as long as their license is compatible. (BTW.: There is nothing more free then the GNU GPL.) > In the 5.0/5.3 source tree everything that wasn't was moved into > src.nonGPL/ and is not built. > > [cc Bernhard who might have a better understanding] This is also my understanding, though because GRASS is a huge project, the best effort we undertook to identify code under licenses which are not compatible with the GNU GPL might not be perfect. There is an exceptions that I know of: v.in.dwg which needs a proprietary library (See: http://intevation.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs-grass.cgi/grass51/vector/v.in.dwg/README?rev=1.3&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup ) Also the version that link gdal must ensure that gdal is not build with non-free (or GNU GPL incompatible) libraries. Hope this helps, Bernhard
Attachment:
pgpDnxA0QjPuq.pgp
Description: PGP signature