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

Thu Oct 17 02:48:19 PDT 2019

Hi Peter,

Yes, that first idea of dual licensing for iOS app store seems more easy to
solve than the second approach.

FYI: it seems like article 6 in the GPLv2 is the problem with Apple App
store, which states: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." In GPLv3 it is article
10: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not
impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights
granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including
a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim
is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the
Program or any portion of it."

See also this interestsing thread - which is a bit newer than other
statements from 2011: https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/18922

Andreas

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 11:36, Peter Petrik <
peter.petrik at lutraconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

> 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)
>>
>

-- 

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20191017/3ed2d2d4/attachment.html>