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

Thu Oct 17 02:30:06 PDT 2019

Hi Peter,

Interesting. Can you explain a bit more what you have in mind with a dual
licensing approach?

- Satisfy requirements of different platforms or app stores (like the iOS
case)?
- Monetize on the sale of commercial licenses of QGIS as a development
platform like qt does - to allow commercial companies to use QGIS in their
own product at their own license terms ?

In the latter case, it would be a bit a can of worms. How would such income
be distributed between the project and the core developes of QGIS who run
their own companies?

I am not sure what it means to introduce dual licensing, but most likely,
like with a change of license, we would also need the approval of every
single contributor to QGIS - or strip away their code contributions. But
again, this is also just an assumption.

Andreas

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 11:13, Peter Petrik <
peter.petrik at lutraconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20191017/4d598fef/attachment.html>