[QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Greg Troxel]

Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net> writes:

> Before we go to far with the discussion here, I would first ask all of
> the core devs if they really would like to do that. 
>
> Without an agreement in place, the code is owned by each contributor
> separately. I know of quite a few core devs who are not keen on ceding
> their copyright to QGIS.ORG, if the goal is to undermine the GPL
> license. 
>
> I am also not sure if QGIS.ORG is ready to prepare such an ownership
> agreement. 
>
> Personally, I fail to understand what the benefits are, if we go this
> route. On the contrary - I think we are risking to loose many core
> contributors if we do that. 

I'm a lurker who has not contributed to qgis, but someday might.  Within
pkgsrc.org, a multi-os multi-arch portable packaging system, I'm one of
the people that most frequently gets asked license questions.  I
maintain the geos/postgis entries in pkgsrc.

I have contributed to a number of open source projects -- but I tend to
find something else to do when I'm asked to sign any kind of CLA or
copyright assignment.

I think there are multiple things going on:

  How do people feel about accomodating Apple's ban on GPL software for
  the iOS app store?  People have talked about qgis having an exception,
  but nobody has brought up talking to Apple to get them to change their
  terms.  I suspect those who really believe in the GPL's purpose don't
  want to make an exception, and there will be enough such people that
  rewriting all their code is not sensible.

  Evolution of the license as the licensing landscape change.  If we are
  talking about changing GPL2 or later to GPL3 or later, that seems
  straightforward, and I think all it takes is for core to accept some
  nontrivial code that is GPL3 or later.  There is the serious question
  about not letting people copy/modify/redistribute under GPL2, but
  that's a group social question, not something that needs every
  contributor to sign off on.

  Change to permissive.  Perhaps because of wanting to accomodate Apple,
  or for other reasons, some may want a permissive license.  This is a
  huge cultural change, and I would expect a significant number of
  people would not be ok with this.

  Copyright assignment.  This opens up the fear of a change in license
  later (to permissive or to accomodate Apple's GPL ban), which leads to
  wanting to have terms in the assignment that constrain the future
  choice.  And it means asking people to sign copyright assignments
  before their code can be merged.  In my view, this alienates potential
  contributors.  So if qgis stays on the GPL "N or later" track, I don't
  see why this helps, and it will definitely hurt.