[QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

Peter Petrik peter.petrik at lutraconsulting.co.uk
Mon Oct 29 02:01:41 PDT 2018


My task is to create specific iOS application for a client that depends
only on qgis_core and qgis_quick libraries, moreover distributed strictly
outside App Store. So I assume there is a little problem with licensing

Ad: iOS vs MacOS. This is similar to running full QGIS on android device,
vs running QField (or similar "reduced" application based on QtQuick). One
thing is possibility to run something somewhere, other thing is if it is
usable at all. I can imagine that it may be possible to compile and run
QGIS on a smart fridge, but ... :) If we want to ship something official
for iOS (or Android) on the official store(s), we would probably need to
agree on some  application (&set of its features) based on qgis quick.


On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:32 PM Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com>

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton <tim at kartoza.com> wrote:
> > One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not impossible) option
> might be for us to add an exception to the GPL license used for QGIS
> allowing its distriibuton via app stores, get every committer who has code
> in the current codebase to agree to the exception and build iOS packages
> off that. Though that would still leave a large issue of the dependent
> libraries that we use that are under GPL where the latter approach is even
> less feasible. So while I am excited at the idea of running QGIS on my iPad
> / iPhone I am wondering if this is a dead-end excursion in terms of making
> QGS generally available on iOS?
> >
> This is opening a complete can of worms... but I've wondered for a
> while if we need to set up a contributor agreement which grants
> copyright of code to the QGIS organisation, so that we have the
> flexibility to relicense QGIS in future if (and ONLY IF!!)
> required***. Currently we are stuck with the GPLv2 or later license
> forever, but I can definitely see a time when we'd like to drop the
> "v2" and move to a pure "v3 or greater" license, or even relicense
> under something more permissive like the MIT license.
> I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
> potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
> to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
> the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
> careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
> project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
> transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
> about whether this is a good idea or not.
> Nyall
> *** Hey Trolly mcTrollface: I'm not ever saying QGIS should go closed
> source. Go take your annoying breed of community troublemaking
> elsewhere and let us keep this discussion civil and based on facts
> only.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181029/2800a666/attachment.html>

More information about the QGIS-Developer mailing list