<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Nathan,<br>
<br>
Maybe this would be a solution.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Andreas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15.12.2015 22:04, Nathan Woodrow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAi8Yg-Y5GNWzeOKBarvt9VcRgG62JULv7RdDQCGi+hkB0orow@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Can we put this in ogr/gdal.</p>
<p dir="ltr">1) gives us another project to spread the cost over<br>
2) they already do this for other drivers<br>
3) others will get it for free if its built at a ogr level</p>
<p dir="ltr">I guess someone still needs to pay for it but at
least if solves the GPL issue.</p>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 6:56 am Andreas Neumann <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:a.neumann@carto.net"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:a.neumann@carto.net">a.neumann@carto.net</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Vincent et
all.<br>
<br>
Here is another issue I found out while doing research on
LibreDWG. It<br>
is not so much a funding issue, but more a GPL v2 vs. v3
incompatibility<br>
issue.<br>
<br>
Apparently you are not allowed to mix GPLv2 and v3. LibreDWG
is v3. Most<br>
other graphics software is v2.<br>
<br>
For that reason, OpenSource CAD or graphics projects like
FreeCAD,<br>
LibreCAD, Inkscape, Blender, etc. are not allowed to use
LibreDWG.<br>
<br>
Not so sure about the situation of QGIS. QGIS states it is
GPLv2 or<br>
above. What does it mean? Is it v2 or v3 or both?<br>
<br>
See<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning</a><br>
<br>
Seems like Richard Stallman personally stated that he is not
going to<br>
solve this GPL licensing compatibility issue. Apparently,
LibreDWG was<br>
forked by the project LibDWG, which is now developed under GPL
v2 - but<br>
also not very mature and stable. Last commit from March 2015.<br>
<br>
Anyway - I feel very uncomfortable building on an unfinished
and not<br>
very actively developed library that no other project really
uses in a<br>
professional project.<br>
<br>
Andreas<br>
<br>
On 15.12.2015 20:00, Vincent Picavet (ml) wrote:<br>
> Hello,<br>
><br>
> On 15/12/2015 15:37, Andreas Neumann wrote:<br>
>> Hi <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://QGIS.ORG"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">QGIS.ORG</a> board,<br>
>><br>
>> As you may be aware, Jürgen I worked on a proposal to
allow import of<br>
>> CAD data into QGIS. Jürgen provided an offer.<br>
>><br>
>> We plan to use the Teigha library of the OpenDesign
Alliance (ODA)<br>
>> (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.opendesign.com/the_oda_platform/Teigha"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.opendesign.com/the_oda_platform/Teigha</a>).
It isn't GPL<br>
>> compatible and it requires a membership fee with
annual renewal.<br>
>><br>
>> I was investigating whether OSGEO could become a
member - this is<br>
>> theoretically possible, but it would require a higher
and more expensive<br>
>> membership level than as if <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://QGIS.ORG"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">QGIS.ORG</a> would become a
member. I would thus<br>
>> propose that <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://QGIS.ORG" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">QGIS.ORG</a>
becomes a sustaining member of the ODA, which<br>
>> would allow to distribute binaries of the Teigha
library for all of our<br>
>> supported platforms, along with the QGIS binaries.<br>
>><br>
>> Financially, the sustaining membership level would
mean US $5000.- in<br>
>> the first year and US $3000.- annual renewal in the
subsequent years. I<br>
>> would propose that <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://QGIS.ORG" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">QGIS.ORG</a>
would pay this membership fees from the<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://QGIS.ORG"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">QGIS.ORG</a> funds - and if
you agree - will include it into our 2016<br>
>> budget. See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.opendesign.com/Sustaining"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.opendesign.com/Sustaining</a><br>
> I am really wondering where we are going to right now
with QGIS.Org.<br>
><br>
> I already gave my opinion that the organization should
not spend money<br>
> to fund features. This is just an opinion, and I do
respect that some<br>
> would not agree. It would at least need a debate first
though.<br>
><br>
> But this yet is another story. Funding directly some
proprietary<br>
> software vendors ? Yearly ? Really ?<br>
><br>
> I have no problem with QGIS plugins using some prorietary
piece of code,<br>
> circumventing the GPL. But this proposal is a different
beast :<br>
> * It is feature-related funding, for a quite large amount
( that's ok if<br>
> it is not <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://qgis.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">qgis.org</a>
paying, but this should be clear)<br>
> * It would fund a proprietary software vendor ( definitly
not ok)<br>
> * It would package proprietary software with default QGIS
releases ( not<br>
> ok )<br>
> * It would implement a technical (ugly) workaround for
licence<br>
> compatibility ( not ok in core or default installed
plugin )<br>
> * It is a recurrent spending, with a very difficult way
back ( removing<br>
> the user such a feature will be hard)<br>
><br>
> Why don't you implement a separate proprietary tool with
a end-user<br>
> installer, having nothing to do with QGIS.org, OSGeo, nor
QGIS<br>
> distribution, that allows format conversion to QGIS
project/data/style<br>
> files ?<br>
> We would not have to mess with proprietary software, and
any<br>
> non-opensource organization could pay the money to be
allowed to<br>
> distribute it. Even a simple end user could distribute
this separate<br>
> tool, paying the licence fee.<br>
> But please, do not involve QGIS.org in this mess, we have
plenty enough<br>
> with the ECW opensource-not-libre dragon.<br>
><br>
> Or follow strk's advice and improve the libredwg library.
That's the<br>
> right way to do things.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Vincent<br>
><br>
> PS : Jeff will probably not answer your queries as he
resigned from<br>
> OSGeo's board<br>
><br>
>> I will propose to make this decision dependent on our
ability to raise<br>
>> the 32k Euros required to pay Jürgen for the
QGIS-side development. So<br>
>> far I only have confirmations for about 10k Euros.
Still some work to<br>
>> raise the full amount.<br>
>><br>
>> Do you have any questions regarding this proposal?<br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>> Andreas<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Qgis-psc mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-psc@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc</a></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>