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

Thu Oct 17 02:36:05 PDT 2019

Hi,

my idea was more about the requirements of different platforms.

P.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:29 AM Andreas Neumann <andreas at qgis.org> wrote:

> 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/20191017/3d571a3d/attachment.html>