[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-grass-general] mapserver Pkg update 11/12/2004


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

Also the version that link gdal must ensure that gdal is not build
with non-free (or GNU GPL incompatible) libraries.

Hope this helps,

Attachment: pgpDnxA0QjPuq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: