[QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

Fri Nov 9 00:12:52 PST 2018

>
>
> Your concerns are very valid, but could we defer this to a different
> discussion? I really want to avoid this becoming an us-vs-apple/debate
> about the merit of specific licenses, and instead allow it to focus
> solely on the question:
>

No worries to not talks about Apple stuff here. Still, before discussiing
this:

"should the qgis org, with all the checks and
> balances it has in place, have the power to relicense the QGIS
> codebase (or not)"?.
>

Can someone explain clearly "Why" ?

Régis

Le ven. 9 nov. 2018 à 08:52, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Régis Haubourg <regis.haubourg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > I'm following this from a distant eye, not being sure to understand
> clearly what is propose and what is at stake.
> >
> > Could someone do a brief synthesis for a broader audience?
> >
> > Concerning the iOS, a word a the french context. Apple hardware costs
> are so expensive that I almost never see any professional GIS application
> asked on those platforms. It might be different in the US for sure.
> > We have more questions about linking QGIS proprietary software in closed
> source solutions. And at the cultural moment we see, I see the GPL licence
> more as a protection and a way to trigger discussions and cultural changes
> than a real break.
> > We already succeded to change some customers mind to open source their
> product. I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't have been possible with a
> permissive licence.
>
> Hi Régis!
>
> Your concerns are very valid, but could we defer this to a different
> discussion? I really want to avoid this becoming an us-vs-apple/debate
> about the merit of specific licenses, and instead allow it to focus
> solely on the question: "should the qgis org, with all the checks and
> balances it has in place, have the power to relicense the QGIS
> codebase (or not)"?.
>
> Nyall
>
>
> >
> > Debate welcome :)
> > Régis
> >
> > Le ven. 9 nov. 2018 à 06:09, Tim Sutton <tim at kartoza.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >> Hi Nyall
> >>
> >> Thanks so much for articulating what I couldn’t in your email below.
> This is 100% what I am after too: A sensible, open discussion with an eye
> to maintaining the long term survival and success of the QGIS project in a
> changing world. I agree with everything you said down to the donation of
> any previous work I have made in the code base to the QGIS.org project.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> On 09 Nov 2018, at 04:56, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback here -- it's much appreciated.
> >>
> >> I feel there's been substantial misunderstanding of the original
> >> intent of my email. It wasn't designed to address any *specific*
> >> licensing issues such as the issue with Apple's app store. (And, on a
> >> practical level, this is a VERY REAL issue, limiting some value of
> >> QGIS). That's all secondary to the discussion I was hoping to raise
> >> and should be deferred to a future discussion if/when needed/possible.
> >>
> >> (Gosh, I can't think of how to word this well... I'll just plough
> >> ahead and hope my intention gets through)
> >>
> >> Up front, know that I'm a staunch open source supporter, both from a
> >> practical and idealistic view. I'm not interested in closed source
> >> software and likely never will be.
> >>
> >> I strongly believe that the QGIS project has a fantastic governance
> >> structure, and one which is a role model for other
> >> projects/communities. This is all thanks to the hard work and tireless
> >> efforts of the PSC and other members of the community. It's something
> >> we should be intensely proud of. I know I am! In fact, I've seen time
> >> and time again how good project governance and community in open
> >> source projects is often worth FAR more than the code itself.
> >>
> >> I personally feel that the project governance structure is so strong
> >> that I'm willing to trust it with complete ownership of YEARS of my
> >> development work*. I've complete confidence in the project governance
> >> that they have (and will remain to have) the best interests of the
> >> QGIS project at heart. And in order for them to continue doing what's
> >> necessary to ensure survival (and dominance! ;) ) of the software, I
> >> think it's important that the organisation has some avenue in future
> >> to be able to relicense the codebase IF there's a compelling reason
> >> why they think it's required.
> >>
> >> Putting it another way: if, for whatever reason, the current license
> >> becomes a roadblock in future which threatens the future of the
> >> software, what do we do? I'd hate to see something like this occur and
> >> result in the project, and all the years of effort which has been put
> >> into it, being abandoned because we have no course of action to
> >> address this.
> >>
> >> I 100% realise this is a tricky conversation... but that shouldn't
> >> prevent us from discussing it openly and with a spirit of
> >> collaboration. I don't think avoiding tricky discussions just because
> >> they are tricky is ever a good approach.
> >>
> >> And hey, my trust in the project governance goes both ways. If they
> >> discuss this topic and decide it's not something they want to pursue,
> >> then I'm fine with that too. Like I said -- I trust them to run the
> >> project and continue to do outstanding efforts on the jobs we've
> >> elected them to do.
> >>
> >> Nyall
> >>
> >> *  Heck, take this email as a legally binding agreement if you want --
> >> I'm granting the QGIS organisation legal entity any rights they want
> >> to code I've written for QGIS over the years to do with whatever they
> >> want. That's how strongly I trust them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> >>
> >>
> >> —
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim Sutton
> >>
> >> Co-founder: Kartoza
> >> Ex Project chair: QGIS.org
> >>
> >> Visit http://kartoza.com to find out about open source:
> >>
> >> Desktop GIS programming services
> >> Geospatial web development
> >> GIS Training
> >> Consulting Services
> >>
> >> Skype: timlinux
> >> IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> >> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20181109/bf034e79/attachment-0001.html>