[Qgis-developer] QIGS GPL -> LGPL - Tigers, Lions and Bears Oh My!

[Tim Sutton]

Hi Nathan


Licensing ..... the least favourite topic for most of us since half
the time we don't understand all the in and outs... see more below

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Nathan Woodrow <madmanwoo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like, if I may, raise the topic of the current licensing of QGIS.
>  One thing I have been thinking about lately is if we should change the
> licence from GPL to LGPL.  I understand the motivation to use GPL at the
> start, as Qt was only GPL but now that it is LPGL that is no longer an
> issue.
>

First let me say it would probably be extremely difficult to change
the license as we would need to track down every contributor to the
code base and have them sign an agreement to change the license to
LGPL....

>
>
> I raise this issue because I believe in order grow/improve the project
> letting people build and sell apps built on top of QGIS would be a great way
> to get support and development for/into the project.  I have had a few
> companies I have talked to here in Australia saying they are interested in
> QGIS and that deploying solutions built onto the QGIS libs would possibility
> be a good move for them (and me as a client), but then I think that QGIS is
> GPL and that kills their business model.
>

As I understand it, the GPL does not prevent people selling the
software in any way. It only mandates that the the original code and
any improvements are released under the same license as they were
received. So you could in theory take the windows installer and the
source tarball from download.qgis.org and shrink wrap it and sell it
on ebay at USD1000 a pop and some sucker out there will surely buy it
and make you rich. You could also build an app on top of the libs and
distribute that in a shrink wrapped box as long as you include your
source code, our source code and of course your customised binary.

The question you raise has been raised before and we have always said
no. The reason for this is that we want to ensure that the commitment
we have made to provide a Free and open source GIS available to
everyone does not get diluted by people further down the line who want
to essentially leverage our work without contributing anything back.


>
>
> Projects like PostGIS and uDig are all under the LGPL and seem to get along
> fine in this regard.  A sub department in the state government here builds
> custom solutions on top of uDig, they don’t sell their software (ASFIK) but
> there is nothing stopping them from doing so.
>

Once again, the GPL does not preclude people from selling the work so
you can do the same with QGIS if you like.

>
>
> From my understanding of the LGPL. If someone takes the QGIS libs and builds
> an app on it, they are allowed to sell their product and not release the
> code


Exactly what we would like to avoid.

> however if they make any changes to QGIS then they have to release the
> changes.  To me this is a WIN-WIN situation.

To me its a win-lose situation - someone else leverages the
intellectual property they take from our Free project and creates
something that cannot be Freely shared.

> We can keep QGIS open/free and
> still stop people selling a modified version of QGIS as their own but people
> can still build apps to sell to clients; at the same time if Company A
> starts building onto QGIS and runs into a issue (say lack of rule based
> labels) I think they would be more likely to support that development as it
> helps their bottom line.
>


There is nothing stopping you selling a modified version of QGIS, as
long as you comply with the GPL and distribute all of the
modifications you have made in source form along with the binary.


> While I can see the use of GPL, and I’m all for free all the way up and down
> (in a perfect world), if I was a business owner looking to invest in a
> product I wouldn’t touch it. Where as I would be happy to build onto
> something like uDig (not that I’m going to) knowing that I can sell my
> solution, giving the clients what they want, but not having to open my code
> up.
>


I think there are plenty of business owners who would and I don't
think that supporting business owners who actually don't want to
contribute anything back to the project is a very good rationale for
us to change the license.




> Thoughts?

If there was a good rationale for changing our license to LGPL, it
would be because we want to broaden the ability of QGIS to integrate
with other proprietary software e.g. oracle spatial. However I believe
that if we are creative we can avoid this pitfall as is evidenced with
the very good way in which sybase approached us and implemented
support for SQL Anywhere.


In short from me it would be a -1 unless there was a better reason.


I see Alex has just posted a long missive in reply to this too so
perhaps he has a different perspective.\


Regards

Tim

>
>
>
> P.S I am aware that licensing is a nothing topic that can cause flame wars,
> so play nice ;)
>
> - Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
>



-- 
Tim Sutton - QGIS Project Steering Committee Member (Release  Manager)
==============================================
Please do not email me off-list with technical
support questions. Using the lists will gain
more exposure for your issues and the knowledge
surrounding your issue will be shared with all.

Visit http://linfiniti.com to find out about:
 * QGIS programming and support services
 * Mapserver and PostGIS based hosting plans
 * FOSS Consulting Services
Skype: timlinux
Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
==============================================