Re: [guppi-list] Goose numerics licensing update

[Jon Trowbridge <trow emccta com>]

On Fri, Sep 18, 1998 at 05:46:31AM -0600, Mark Galassi wrote:
> But let me just say here that you guys are going very fast down a
> strange avenue: you are basically spending time modifying your
> software for people who do not plan to make theirs free.
> 
> The LGPL's original purpose was not to help others keep their software
> hoarded.  I think it's a pity that people are treating it like a way
> of giving a grant to a rather antisocial industry.

I of course agree with you in general.  In this specific case, though,
I think that the LGPL is a net positive for Goose, because of the
following:

* How much time am I spending modifying my software for people who do
  not plan to make theirs free?  Despite a fair amount of traffic on
  the mailing list, I'm guessing it will be < 8 hours.  It is really
  not a big job to re-implement the code I wanted to use from R.  

* On the other hand, the group that wants to use Goose in their
  commercial product has pledged to give back a really significant
  amount of code under the LGPL.  The time it would take me to
  reproduce the work they are willing to do is orders of magnitude
  greater than the time it takes for me for me to keep Goose LGPL.

Now who knows what will happen: maybe the commercial interests won't
make a significant contribution after all, maybe they will... but it
seems like a win for our community, since the pool of free software
will grow.  And by making a commitment to Goose, this company is
taking a small step towards being much less antisocial than others in
their industry.  If they can see the benefits of using this LGPLed
code, and free software in general, it might encourage them (and
perhaps others) to take further steps towards joining in and
supporting our community.

> The GSL team is flexible about using GPL or LGPL, but we want to hear
> a better case presented than "I'm writing a non-free app, so please
> LGPL your stuff for me".

Well, in this specific case, they did, by offering to make a big
contribution.  I certainly agree that, in general, the software
industry deserves no handouts from us.

The one thing that worries me about this is the prospect of GSL
staying GPLed.  Goose needs the kind of code that the company is
willing to contribute more than it needs code from GSL.  But I am
hoping to make some use of GSL down the road, and I might have to
re-invent a few wheels later if GSL stays GPLed.  But that is a
trade-off that I'm comfortable with for this particular
project...

Of course, I'm hoping that GSL goes GPL.  Given that a large number
of non-free, closed numerical libraries are available for sale, I
would think that we are all best served by having GSL LGPLed to try to
steer commercial products that would just use the non-free libs
towards trying GSL, possibly contributing to GSL, and learning about
how free software can help them.  But that is a decision that you all
will make based on what is in the long-term best interest for your
project, something that I'm certainly not in best position to judge.

-JT