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

Thu Oct 17 02:51:23 PDT 2019

It is not only about iOS... You may want to add QGIS to MacOS Desktop
AppStore, to Windows store, ...

P.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:48 AM Andreas Neumann <andreas at qgis.org> wrote:

> 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/b1c975e1/attachment.html>