[Qgis-psc] QGIS licence (was: QGIS on iOS was QGIS for Mobile (Android))

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi Nyall, 

I doubt that an "unbiased" company/organization/person even exists on
this planet, when it comes to licenses, just as people have a precedence
for political views and parties. Disclaimer: I am personally certainly
not unbiased, regarding this matter. 

But before even starting on asking someone to dive into the topic, I
would like to know the reasons why we need to discuss a license change? 

Is iOS the only reason? If yes, others have pointed out that alternative
app stores exist. If we offer QGIS on iOS, we could publish it in an
alternative app store, write some small page explaining how it works and
the problem should be solved? It is certainly acceptable for someone to
do these 2-3 extra clicks in order to get a free QGIS mobile for their
Apple mobile? I am sure our users would understand this situation, if we
explain in 2-3 sentences why we have to do this: license
incompatibilities that aren't easy (or maybe not even possible?) to
solve. 

Andreas 

On 2019-10-17 08:11, Nyall Dawson wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 15:44, Paolo Cavallini <cavallini at faunalia.it> wrote:
> 
>> no need to be emotional on this, fully agreed.
>> So if I if I understand it correctly you are suggesting to move to a
>> BSD-like licence or an LGPL for part of it?
> 
> Actually - I'm proposing a discussion several levels before even
> discussing a particular license :)
> 
> I'd like someone to research and write up a commissioned report on whether:
> 
> - it would be possible to relicense QGIS and what would be involved in
> doing so (including which other projects have done this and how they
> went about it)
> - what the potential benefits and downsides of doing so would be.
> - possible licenses we could investigate, and which of these would
> make things like the iOS situation easier
> - whether dependencies we already have would block any possibility of
> relicensing
> - how this would impact on the plugin scene (I could see there being
> both huge benefits and disadvantages of relicensing for plugins)
> - whether a potential CLA assigning code ownership to qgis.org would
> be possible, and the advantages and disadvantages of this
> 
> I think this should be done by a trusted company or individual, and
> ideally one well acquainted with the QGIS community yet with a history
> of **impartiality** to topics which impact on this (like the ios
> situation, or a history of antagonism toward non-GPL software). Only
> after a report has been written by this individual/organisation, and
> then tabled and accepted by the PSC, should it THEN be raised for
> public discussion with the community, where **everyone** discussing
> the issue can be fully informed of all sides of the debate **before**
> the group discussion even begins!
> 
> Nyall
> 
>> Besides personal preferences
>> and priorities, I believe this would be technically very difficult. We
>> tried many years ago the same for GRASS, and it proved impossible,
>> especially because of the code from developers disappeared form the radar.
>> I should add that I'm hearing since years rumors of the type "it's free
>> for now, be sure that when it will be very good you'll have to pay for
>> it". I think that discussing about this will give credit to these
>> rumors, and spread FUD around the project, so we have to be extra careful.
>> I suggest discussing this in the next PSC.
>> Cheers.
>> --
>> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu [1]
>> QGIS.ORG Chair:
>> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.faunalia.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20191017/52b734b2/attachment.html>