[Qgis-psc] Proposal that QGIS.ORG will become a member of the OpenDesign Alliance

[Nathan Woodrow]

Can we put this in ogr/gdal.

1) gives us another project to spread the cost over
2) they already do this for other drivers
3) others will get it for free if its built at a ogr level

I guess someone still needs to pay for it but at least if solves the GPL
issue.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 6:56 am Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net> wrote:

> Vincent et all.
>
> Here is another issue I found out while doing research on LibreDWG. It
> is not so much a funding issue, but more a GPL v2 vs. v3 incompatibility
> issue.
>
> Apparently you are not allowed to mix GPLv2 and v3. LibreDWG is v3. Most
> other graphics software is v2.
>
> For that reason, OpenSource CAD or graphics projects like FreeCAD,
> LibreCAD, Inkscape, Blender, etc. are not allowed to use LibreDWG.
>
> Not so  sure about the situation of QGIS. QGIS states it is GPLv2 or
> above. What does it mean? Is it v2 or v3 or both?
>
> See
>
> http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning
>
> Seems like Richard Stallman personally stated that he is not going to
> solve this GPL licensing compatibility issue. Apparently, LibreDWG was
> forked by the project LibDWG, which is now developed under GPL v2 - but
> also not very mature and stable. Last commit from March 2015.
>
> Anyway - I feel very uncomfortable building on an unfinished and not
> very actively developed library that no other project really uses in a
> professional project.
>
> Andreas
>
> On 15.12.2015 20:00, Vincent Picavet (ml) wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 15/12/2015 15:37, Andreas Neumann wrote:
> >> Hi QGIS.ORG board,
> >>
> >> As you may be aware, Jürgen I worked on a proposal to allow import of
> >> CAD data into QGIS. Jürgen provided an offer.
> >>
> >> We plan to use the Teigha library of the OpenDesign Alliance (ODA)
> >> (https://www.opendesign.com/the_oda_platform/Teigha). It isn't GPL
> >> compatible and it requires a membership fee with annual renewal.
> >>
> >> I was investigating whether OSGEO could become a member - this is
> >> theoretically possible, but it would require a higher and more expensive
> >> membership level than as if QGIS.ORG would become a member. I would
> thus
> >> propose that QGIS.ORG becomes a sustaining member of the ODA, which
> >> would allow to distribute binaries of the Teigha library for all of our
> >> supported platforms, along with the QGIS binaries.
> >>
> >> Financially, the sustaining membership level would mean US $5000.- in
> >> the first year and US $3000.- annual renewal in the subsequent years. I
> >> would propose that QGIS.ORG would pay this membership fees from the
> >> QGIS.ORG funds - and if you agree - will include it into our 2016
> >> budget. See https://www.opendesign.com/Sustaining
> > I am really wondering where we are going to right now with QGIS.Org.
> >
> > I already gave my opinion that the organization should not spend money
> > to fund features. This is just an opinion, and I do respect that some
> > would not agree. It would at least need a debate first though.
> >
> > But this yet is another story. Funding directly some proprietary
> > software vendors ? Yearly ? Really ?
> >
> > I have no problem with QGIS plugins using some prorietary piece of code,
> > circumventing the GPL. But this proposal is a different beast :
> > * It is feature-related funding, for a quite large amount ( that's ok if
> > it is not qgis.org paying, but this should be clear)
> > * It would fund a proprietary software vendor ( definitly not ok)
> > * It would package proprietary software with default QGIS releases ( not
> > ok )
> > * It would implement a technical (ugly) workaround for licence
> > compatibility ( not ok in core or default installed plugin )
> > * It is a recurrent spending, with a very difficult way back ( removing
> > the user such a feature will be hard)
> >
> > Why don't you implement a separate proprietary tool with a end-user
> > installer, having nothing to do with QGIS.org, OSGeo, nor QGIS
> > distribution, that allows format conversion to QGIS project/data/style
> > files ?
> > We would not have to mess with proprietary software, and any
> > non-opensource organization could pay the money to be allowed to
> > distribute it. Even a simple end user could distribute this separate
> > tool, paying the licence fee.
> > But please, do not involve QGIS.org in this mess, we have plenty enough
> > with the ECW opensource-not-libre dragon.
> >
> > Or follow strk's advice and improve the libredwg library. That's the
> > right way to do things.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Vincent
> >
> > PS : Jeff will probably not answer your queries as he resigned from
> > OSGeo's board
> >
> >> I will propose to make this decision dependent on our ability to raise
> >> the 32k Euros required to pay Jürgen for the QGIS-side development. So
> >> far I only have confirmations for about 10k Euros. Still some work to
> >> raise the full amount.
> >>
> >> Do you have any questions regarding this proposal?
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andreas
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Qgis-psc mailing list
> >> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20151215/0696c5a5/attachment.html>