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

Thu Oct 17 03:22:22 PDT 2019

Hi Andreas,

you are probably right, I do not have that deep knowledge of all the
various platforms for publishing. I just wanted to add that it *may* be a
problem (in the future) also with different publishing platforms.

sorry for noise.
Peter

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:20 PM Andreas Neumann <andreas at qgis.org> wrote:

> Peter,
>
> I think that the Microsoft Windows app store is a different beast than the
> Apple iOS appstore. And the Apple store for MacOS is also less restrictive
> than the iOS store.
>
> About Microsoft:
> see http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/Windows-Store-and-the-GPL
> (quite old, but hopefully still true). A lot of these discussions around
> GPL and app stores is many years old, and it would be useful to investigate
> if they are still true. People change, companies changes, licenses and
> restrictions change.
>
> I has a look at https://www.microsoft.com/de-de/store/apps/windows and
> there is a lot of GPL software available: Inkscape, VLC, Blender,
>
> I don't see why QGIS couldn't be available on the Windows app store.
>
> 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/20191017/07732ecc/attachment.html>