<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/13/2021 3:58 PM, Howard Butler
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:178B608F-104F-4249-9A66-BE4B18057B61@hobu.co">
<div class="">License monkey business isn't viable in any way with
GDAL. It would just create confusion and erode trust, which we
can't get back if broken. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
gdal wouldn't be the first project to change it's license, though I
really don't know enough about the consequences others have faced
for doing so. Even the revered GPL is a moving target.<br>
If the alternative is a burned out lead developer/maintainer and a
dead project, that's not a desirable outcome either. <br>
<br>
I'm not sure I agree that changing the license would create
confusion and erode trust. Assuming that we (whoever "we" are)
actually have the legal right to change the license, let's play a
hypothetical.<br>
The new license maintains fees from two classes of users:<br>
1. Anyone incorporating gdal into a product that is <br>
a. not completely open source, and<br>
b. charges a license fee (perpetual or subscription), and<br>
c. has more than x active licenses (x = 500? 1000?)<br>
2. Any for-profit organization utilizing gdal in-house for data
analysis, conversion, on-line services, etc, in excess of x CPU
hours per year (where y = 1000? 5000?...)<br>
3. Any organization that uses gdal indirectly through a free, open
source product (eg, QGIS) or a licensed product covered under 1)
above is exempt from 1) and 2). <br>
<br>
(Standard caveat - I'm not a lawyer and I'm not proposing this is
the actual language of the license. It is intended as a discussion
of how we might describe firms who are obligated to pay a license
fee. I have deliberately not suggested an actual fee. The number of
licensees will be small and I expect each license will be negotiated
separately to suit the specific case.)<br>
<br>
I don't think I need to name names - you know who the big players
are in categories 1 and 2. Only two in category 1 and none in
category 2 stepped up with a large (relative to the ask) commitment
in the previous barn raising. <br>
<br>
By selecting appropriate values for x and y the net result will be a
very small number of large (and mostly extremely profitable) firms
are covered by the paid license category and they are easily
identified. The value they derive from gdal far exceeds whatever
might be asked of them to support one (or even several) full-time
developers among themselves. <br>
<br>
Equally, the vast majority of users will have no question that they
continue to operate in the free range. Given that this whole thing
started with a suggestion that the only way to make users aware of
deprecation of obsolete drivers was to make the drivers stop
working, how many users will even be aware of a license change?<br>
<br>
For the very few companies right at the boundary, it's not like the
gdal license gods are going to audit to see if they have x + 1 or x
- 1 active licenses. At some point they will big enough that either
they will voluntarily recognize their obligation or someone will
call them out on it. It's not like gdal will have legion of lawyers
chasing after folks any more than we currently chase those who fail
to meet their obligations under the existing license. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:178B608F-104F-4249-9A66-BE4B18057B61@hobu.co">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The big organizations running 100,000,000s of CPU
hours extracting information from imagery they're reading in
COGs with GDAL need to be donating substantial resources into an
organization that provides coordination. The last time I did a
fund raise with <a href="http://gdalbarn.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">gdalbarn.com</a> I was called out for
naming some of these organizations and expressing my
disappointment they couldn't find a way to participate or simply
ignored the request. Maybe they will step forward this time
around.</div>
</blockquote>
I don't see how another one-off barn-raising is a sustainable
solution. I looked over the list and none of the companies (and I'm
sure it's plural) "running 100,000,000 of CPU hours" contributed
last time around. Even if that were to change, how often do you want
to go around with your beggar's bowl asking for alms? Unless faced
with a license that legally obligates them to contribute, history
tells us they will not contribute anything near their fair share (or
anything at all, for that matter). <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:178B608F-104F-4249-9A66-BE4B18057B61@hobu.co">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Whether it is in a new foundation or an existing one
like NumFocus, substantial resources need to be dumped in a pot
that are earmarked for supporting <span style="caret-color:
rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">work that
generates value for the project. Chasing new feature work to
subsidize project maintenance activities is not sustainable in
two directions – burn out for the maintainer and creeping
feature-itis for the project. <br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
Absolutely on the mark. Funding has to be provided directly for
on-going maintenance. It can't be scraped from a tax on new
features. Regardless of whether the structure is a foundation or
something else, the compelling issue is whether gdal will survive on
voluntary contributions (and all the effort it takes to scrape those
together). It hasn't worked in the past. Why will the future be
different?<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>