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

Thu Oct 17 03:06:55 PDT 2019

And all of these app-stores don't accept GPL software? I doubt that. That
would be strange. Isn't Microsoft more OS friendly these days?

Note that even MacOS itself contains GPL software! See
https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf

"B. Certain software libraries and other third party software included with
the Apple Software are free
software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License
(GPL) or the GNU Library/
Lesser General Public License (LGPL), as the case may be. You may obtain a
complete machinereadable copy of the source code for such free software
under the terms of the GPL or LGPL, as the
case may be, without charge except for the cost of media, shipping, and
handling, upon written request
to Apple at opensource at apple.com. The GPL/LGPL software is distributed in
the hope that it will be
useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. A copy of the GPL and LGPL is included
with the Apple
Software."

How can they use GPL software themselves in their own products and at the
same time reject any other GPL software in their app stores? Isn't it time
that they change their terms? It seems like foul-play in my opinion!

Andreas

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 11:51, Peter Petrik <
peter.petrik at lutraconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

> 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)
>>
>

-- 

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20191017/a8c680f1/attachment.html>