[Qgis-psc] Proposal that QGIS.ORG will become a member of the OpenDesign Alliance

Tue Dec 15 13:20:58 PST 2015

Hi Nathan,

Maybe this would be a solution.

Jürgen - can you please comment, if - besides legal issues - it would 
work well from a technical point of view, if OGR would deliver the DWG 
contents by using Teigha?

I would have to check with ODA - if that would be ok. We would probably 
still have to pay the bulk of the membership fee from QGIS.ORG (or some 
other funders).

Thanks,
Andreas

On 15.12.2015 22:04, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
>
> Can we put this in ogr/gdal.
>
> 1) gives us another project to spread the cost over
> 2) they already do this for other drivers
> 3) others will get it for free if its built at a ogr level
>
> I guess someone still needs to pay for it but at least if solves the 
> GPL issue.
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 6:56 am Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net 
> <mailto:a.neumann at carto.net>> wrote:
>
>     Vincent et all.
>
>     Here is another issue I found out while doing research on LibreDWG. It
>     is not so much a funding issue, but more a GPL v2 vs. v3
>     incompatibility
>     issue.
>
>     Apparently you are not allowed to mix GPLv2 and v3. LibreDWG is
>     v3. Most
>     other graphics software is v2.
>
>     For that reason, OpenSource CAD or graphics projects like FreeCAD,
>     LibreCAD, Inkscape, Blender, etc. are not allowed to use LibreDWG.
>
>     Not so  sure about the situation of QGIS. QGIS states it is GPLv2 or
>     above. What does it mean? Is it v2 or v3 or both?
>
>     See
>     http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning
>
>     Seems like Richard Stallman personally stated that he is not going to
>     solve this GPL licensing compatibility issue. Apparently, LibreDWG was
>     forked by the project LibDWG, which is now developed under GPL v2
>     - but
>     also not very mature and stable. Last commit from March 2015.
>
>     Anyway - I feel very uncomfortable building on an unfinished and not
>     very actively developed library that no other project really uses in a
>     professional project.
>
>     Andreas
>
>     On 15.12.2015 20:00, Vincent Picavet (ml) wrote:
>     > Hello,
>     >
>     > On 15/12/2015 15:37, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>     >> Hi QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> board,
>     >>
>     >> As you may be aware, Jürgen I worked on a proposal to allow
>     import of
>     >> CAD data into QGIS. Jürgen provided an offer.
>     >>
>     >> We plan to use the Teigha library of the OpenDesign Alliance (ODA)
>     >> (https://www.opendesign.com/the_oda_platform/Teigha). It isn't GPL
>     >> compatible and it requires a membership fee with annual renewal.
>     >>
>     >> I was investigating whether OSGEO could become a member - this is
>     >> theoretically possible, but it would require a higher and more
>     expensive
>     >> membership level than as if QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> would
>     become a member. I would thus
>     >> propose that QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> becomes a sustaining
>     member of the ODA, which
>     >> would allow to distribute binaries of the Teigha library for
>     all of our
>     >> supported platforms, along with the QGIS binaries.
>     >>
>     >> Financially, the sustaining membership level would mean US
>     $5000.- in
>     >> the first year and US $3000.- annual renewal in the subsequent
>     years. I
>     >> would propose that QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> would pay this
>     membership fees from the
>     >> QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> funds - and if you agree - will
>     include it into our 2016
>     >> budget. See https://www.opendesign.com/Sustaining
>     > I am really wondering where we are going to right now with QGIS.Org.
>     >
>     > I already gave my opinion that the organization should not spend
>     money
>     > to fund features. This is just an opinion, and I do respect that
>     some
>     > would not agree. It would at least need a debate first though.
>     >
>     > But this yet is another story. Funding directly some proprietary
>     > software vendors ? Yearly ? Really ?
>     >
>     > I have no problem with QGIS plugins using some prorietary piece
>     of code,
>     > circumventing the GPL. But this proposal is a different beast :
>     > * It is feature-related funding, for a quite large amount (
>     that's ok if
>     > it is not qgis.org <http://qgis.org> paying, but this should be
>     clear)
>     > * It would fund a proprietary software vendor ( definitly not ok)
>     > * It would package proprietary software with default QGIS
>     releases ( not
>     > ok )
>     > * It would implement a technical (ugly) workaround for licence
>     > compatibility ( not ok in core or default installed plugin )
>     > * It is a recurrent spending, with a very difficult way back (
>     removing
>     > the user such a feature will be hard)
>     >
>     > Why don't you implement a separate proprietary tool with a end-user
>     > installer, having nothing to do with QGIS.org, OSGeo, nor QGIS
>     > distribution, that allows format conversion to QGIS
>     project/data/style
>     > files ?
>     > We would not have to mess with proprietary software, and any
>     > non-opensource organization could pay the money to be allowed to
>     > distribute it. Even a simple end user could distribute this separate
>     > tool, paying the licence fee.
>     > But please, do not involve QGIS.org in this mess, we have plenty
>     enough
>     > with the ECW opensource-not-libre dragon.
>     >
>     > Or follow strk's advice and improve the libredwg library. That's the
>     > right way to do things.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     > Vincent
>     >
>     > PS : Jeff will probably not answer your queries as he resigned from
>     > OSGeo's board
>     >
>     >> I will propose to make this decision dependent on our ability
>     to raise
>     >> the 32k Euros required to pay Jürgen for the QGIS-side
>     development. So
>     >> far I only have confirmations for about 10k Euros. Still some
>     work to
>     >> raise the full amount.
>     >>
>     >> Do you have any questions regarding this proposal?
>     >> Thanks,
>     >> Andreas
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Qgis-psc mailing list
>     >> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>     >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Qgis-psc mailing list
>     Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20151215/b79d2ebe/attachment.html>