<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Kudos++<br></div>Even's question about deprecating drivers triggered several discussions:<br></div><br>- Should we deprecate unused drivers? or how to find out that many drivers are really not used? I liked the idea of reducing the weight in gdal with unused code. Breaking the execution is the only way that most of the people understand, and enabling them via environment variable is a good workaround imho. Unfortunately the timing of Ubuntu LTSs does not help with the proposed calendar.<br></div><div>If we maintain a library to use old and inefficient formats, "natural selection" will never extinguish them. (Ok, I do not use any of the formats in the list, so maybe I am a bit biased).</div><div></div><div><br></div><div>- How to make GDAL more attractive for contributors? We know that Even is the main contributor by far. Making the code easier to maintain is a good idea. It is going to be enough?<br></div><div><br></div><div>- How to finance the development of GDAL? Well, do not forget that Even is also working a lot in PROJ, a library by the way used by GDAL... (should GDAL contribute to PROJ, as QGIS should contribute to GDAL and PROJ?) I do not know how do the donations to QGIS work, and how complicated is to organize that. A friend mentioned GitHub Sponsors (<a href="https://github.com/sponsors">https://github.com/sponsors</a>) . Maybe it is an easy way. Not only private companies may contribute. I am sure that many governmental institutions are using GDAL and PROJ in a daily basis. However, as somebody said, the developer that codes with GDAL usually does not have any power to induce the company to make a donation. That is my case... but I still insist every few months (I guess they ignore me more and more).<br></div><div><br></div><div>I want to thank Even for the great work he is doing.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers<br></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">.___ ._ ..._ .. . ._. .___ .. __ . _. . __.. ... .... ._ .__<br>Entre dos pensamientos racionales <br>hay infinitos pensamientos irracionales.<br><br></div></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 21:24, David Strip <<a href="mailto:gdal@stripfamily.net" target="_blank">gdal@stripfamily.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Kudos to Howard for his succinct summary of the situation and the
call to action. While I have nowhere near his experience with open
source, my experience with other volunteer organizations reveals a
similar pattern. One person, or maybe a small number of people,
carry the burden of keeping the organization running. This goes on
for years until someone burns out. Sometimes new people step before
chaos sets in, but too often the organization begins a death spiral.
<br>
<br>
Open source broadly is facing something of a turning point as
commercial organizations have learned how to profit from open
source, but have not yet learned they have to contribute to the
commons. A particularly relevant example is the case of MongoDB
where cloud services were offering paid hosting while paying nothing
to support the project. Gdal's situation strikes me as similar.
Large commercial vendors are embedding gdal in their offerings,
either directly in software delivered to users or as part of the
infrastructure behind the services they provide. Some of these
companies are very profitable and could well afford to pay their
way. Unfortunately, it is often the case that the developer who is
aware of this reliance on gdal may not be in a position to convince
his/her management to ante up for the "free" software. <br>
<br>
What is the path forward? One path Howard suggests is establishing
a foundation similar to that behind Qgis. Another alternative,
probably far more controversial, is a license change. MongoDB
created a license class directed at the cloud suppliers who were
(morally) abusing the free license terms. gdal could adopt a license
that requires those bundling gdal into a commercial product or
service to pay their way. As I said, this would no doubt be quite
controversial. Then there's the case of "second-order" free-riders.
Gdal is critical technology underlying Qgis, another free,
open-source project. Should firms that contribute to the qgis
foundation also contribute to gdal, or can they rely on the
appropriate portion of their "dues" to be forwarded to gdal?<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
gdal-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>