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

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi Strk,

So why aren't FreeCAD, LibreCAD, Blender and Inkscape using LibreDWG? As 
far as I understand, it is because some of their other 
components/libraries are GPLv2 only and thus they can't mix? I can't 
claim that I understand all of these licensing issues. But apparently, 
for some reasons the majority of the LibreGraphics software cannot use 
LibreDWG. This is what the say at their websites:

http://freecadweb.org/wiki/?title=Licence#GPL2.2FGPL3.2FOCTLP_incompatibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreCAD#GPLv3_vs_GPLv2_controversy

Apparently LibreCAD created their own library, which is available at 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libdxfrw/

So - yet another incomplete library.

About the funding drive: this funding drive is about the Free Software 
Foundation (FSF) in general, not for the LibreDWG project, 
unfortunately. You can find the same funding drive on 
http://www.gnu.org/ and other GNU websites. Unfortunately, FSF, doesn't 
treat LibreDWG as a priority project.

As to

v.in.readwg

in GRASS. And it has yet to be tested with DWG files from the wild. I 
doubt it can open the bulk of it.

This probably works fine for raw geometry (if it doesn't contain 
curves). But DWG is much more complex than simple feature geometries. It 
mixes, styles, labels and geometry. We want to read all of it reliably.

So basically, GRASS is the only piece of software using LibreDWG - 
according to https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:LibreDWG#Who_uses_it.3F
because the information about LibreCAD is outdated.

Andreas

On 16.12.2015 12:33, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:44:53AM +0100, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>
>> The projects LibreCAD, FreeCAD, Blender, Inkscape would like to use
>> LibreDWG or LibDWG. They are all GPLv2. They are not GPLv2 or higher
>> like QGIS. So QGIS is in a slightly better situation compared to the
>> other libre graphics projects.
> FreeCAD is LGPL2+:
>   http://freecadweb.org/wiki/?title=Licence#Licences_used_in_FreeCAD
>   https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/blob/master/README.md
>
> LibreCAD contains a mix of GPL2, GPL2+ and GPL3:
>   https://github.com/LibreCAD/LibreCAD/blob/master/LICENSE
>   From what I undersatand it is a fork of QCAD whose latest
>   community edition is GPL3.
>
> Blender is GPL2+:
>   https://www.blender.org/about/license/
>   It is explicitly mentioned on that page that a full component version
>   can be distributed cleanly under GPL3
>
> Inkscape license isn't very clear. I've found mentions of its codebase
> containing some GPL3 but they say the code is GPL2.
>
>> If QGIS.ORG (or other QGIS users) would invest into LibreDWG/LibDWG,
>> they have to understand that they are the only funding source of the
>> library - which is a very high-risk I would say. They would also be
>> the only professional user of the library - which is also very
>> risky.
> There's an ongoing funding drive that reached 133k USD so far,
> according to the official homepage for the project.
> Also, it looks like GRASS uses it for v.in.redwg, so it is not
> a completely unknown pieace of software.
>
>> In summary, I am not against using LibreDWG - but I think the risk
>> to invest into it and use it - as the only project is really high.
>> It is also a (financial) burden for the future as we would have to
>> make sure that it still works with future DWG file format versions.
>> Again, if I had 500k Euros at hand, it would be a different
>> discussion - but it would still be risky.
>>
>> If we want to seriously push a Teigha alternative, I would team up
>> with LibreGraphics projects like the above mentioned projects and
>> make sure the license is GPL v2+. This would allow us to spread risk
>> and financial burden. But it would also mean that we won't have CAD
>> support in QGIS in 2016 - as I assume it will take much longer to
>> come up with an alternative to Teigha, which was actively and
>> continuously developed for many years, by several developers.
> None of which can distribute the product of their work, nor show
> others how's done...
>
> I avoid mentioning "CAD support" as we're really talking
> about a specific format here, not about "CAD" in general.
>
> --strk;