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

[Marco Hugentobler]

Hi Nathan

GPL does not require to publish changes / plugins to everyone. E.g. say you 
create a plugin for a contractor, if you give them the binary and a source 
tarball, it's all fine with GPL, and there is no requirement for you or the 
contractor to publish the plugin to the public.

So in my experience, already with GPL, there is space to create commercial 
applications and plugins around QGIS. Two limitations that the GPL has in the 
above case are however:
- Programmer and contractor are not allowed to only publish the binary without 
access to the source code
- Programmer cannot avoid contractor to modify and distribute the plugin

In my opinion, those limitations are not too dramatic, even from a business 
point of view.

Regards,
Marco

Am Donnerstag, 17. November 2011, 06.38:07 schrieb Nathan Woodrow:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> >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 however if they make any changes to QGIS then they have to release
> the changes.  To me this is a WIN-WIN situation.  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.
> 
>  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.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> P.S I am aware that licensing is a nothing topic that can cause flame wars,
> so play nice ;)
> 
> 
> - Nathan


-- 
Dr. Marco Hugentobler
Sourcepole -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
Churerstrasse 22, CH-8808 Pfäffikon SZ, Switzerland
marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch http://www.sourcepole.ch
Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee