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

Thu Oct 17 02:13:09 PDT 2019

Hi,

other option is to dual-license it.. So we can release under GPL where
possible and with other license where it is not possible...

Peter

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:09 AM Andreas Neumann <andreas at qgis.org> wrote:

> Hi Nyall,
>
> I had a look at the article at ars-technica. It mainly discusses the issue
> where other companies use and resell OS software in their cloud environment
> and don't give anything back to the OS project, esp. the cloud providers
> like AWS, Azure, Google, etc. This seems to be esp. difficult for
> server-side SaaS applications (example MongoDB). However, QGIS is still
> mostly a Desktop application, though a lot of effort and investments also
> go into the server side and mobile versions. If QGIS server got very, very
> popular one day in the future, it might be a problem. I wish that QGIS
> server would be so important or well-known that AWS, Azure or Google would
> offer it as a managed service ...
>
> I think you are right that these issues should be discussed. But I am not
> convinced the MongoDB Horowitz approach to restrict usage in a cloud
> environment is the right way to go. Switching to a more permissive license
> than GPL (e.g. to make it compatible with the Mac app store) makes the
> problem even worse in the cloud environment.
>
> Nyall: Do you already see examples where the investments/business of the
> QGIS core contributor companies are under pressure by QGIS being GPL
> licensed? Aren't those core QGIS companies mainly doing business in
> development and support? I don't see how a switch to a different license
> would better protect their work or business around QGIS. But I haven't
> dived in to this issue more. If you can give more examples / thoughts were
> a different license could improve things, it would help.
>
> If QGIS would switch to a more restrictive license in terms of what you
> can do with it (like MongoDB Horowitz suggests) than maybe come QGIS
> companies would attract more money, but QGIS as a project would probably
> risk loosing a lot of contributors.
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 08:57, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 16:42, Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> While it's been the trigger of the current round of discussion, It's
>> certainly not the only factor at play. For instance, I know the GPL
>> requirement on QGIS plugins has been a sticking point for some in the
>> past.
>>
>> I think there's also a need to discuss licensing from a
>> risk-management perspective.There's a reasonable post published
>> yesterday on this topic over at ars technica:
>>
>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/is-the-software-world-taking-too-much-from-the-open-source-community/
>> ,
>> which covers some of the same territory as Paul Ramsey's recent
>> keynotes have done (but arguably Paul's versions are better researched
>> and more eloquent). The face of open-source development IS changing,
>> and the software world is HUGELY different today vs what it was when
>> the QGIS project began. I honestly feel that it's really just doing
>> due-diligence for us as a project to at least investigate these
>> different factors and have a trustworthy, well researched body of
>> knowledge surrounding it. A large percentage of this community have
>> livelihoods/incomes of which QGIS is a significant component, and I'd
>> really like to see us as a project recognise and take steps to protect
>> this.
>>
>> At the moment, we're all just throwing around personal opinions
>> (myself included) based on incomplete understanding of the whole
>> situation...
>>
>> Nyall
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Andreas Neumann
> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20191017/54cfd361/attachment.html>