[libredwg] Re: [GRASS-dev] licensing question

[Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva]

Markus Neteler wrote:
> sorry for no answer so far. This is complicated matter and I am not
> a laywer - so no real idea what to say.
>   
Hi Markus, thanks for your answer. I'm almost sure that there's not a 
juridical problem, since all the licensing seem to be legal. That means, 
if I release my own version of GRASS (say, a fork - I won't do it!) with 
v.in.redwg built-in, linked to LibreDWG and distribute a binary release, 
the resulting binary package will be GPLv3 (since all GRASS code is 
GPLv2+), AFAIK.

My point actually is whether that will be compatible with GRASS's policy 
or not, at least to commit it to the Addons repository. As I've written 
this sentence, it just came to my mind that the original v.in.dwg 
included a proprietary header, and linked to a proprietary library 
(OpenDWG's DWGDirect), but wasn't compiled to any official binary 
releases for default and has been in trunk for years. Therefore, I 
assume that it'll be ok to have a module linking to a GPLv3+ library.

Please notice this piece of text from the copyright file from the debian 
package:

   (Keep in mind that code linking into GRASS can only be distributed
   if compatible with the GPL.)

> I take liberty to cc to Francesco who is the Debian-GIS lead, he may
> have a suggestion for us.
>   
Francesco, would you say that a dwg-capable GRASS, linked with LibreDWG 
(which would result in a GPLv3  binary package), would be ok with the 
Debian project guidelines? We are planning to propose libredwg as a 
Debian package in the future, and default DWG support would be a plus, IMHO.

--
Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva
GNU LibreDWG maintainer