[Qgis-psc] Position on Qt wrt The QT Company announcements

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi all,
thanks for the extensive and well documented feedback.
So apparently we agree this is time to act. I'd suggest to:
* first write/call privately to our contacts in major players (Andreas >
KDAB, Nyall > KDE^, etc.; of course I'm available in case there is a
need for an "official" talk with representatives) to check what are
their plans, and what are the opportunities for coordinating the efforts
* once the situation is more clear, write an official QGIS.ORG
statement, possibly as a blog post; Nyall seems the most documented, so
I'd ask him to take the lead on this; of course I'm available to do my part.
How does it sound?
Cheers.

Il 10/04/20 09:41, Vincent Picavet (ml) ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/04/2020 22:39, Even Rouault wrote:
> [..]
>> But whatever the outcome of the apparently cool discussions within the board of
>> the KDE Free Qt foundation between the KDE e.v and QT Company representatives, I
>> don't think a statement of support from QGIS.org to the open source side of the
>> QT project would hurt.
> 
> +1 to this too
> 
>> As far as which body to officially support, this is a bit difficult. As the
>> board of the KDE Free Qt foundation is made of 2 representatives from KDE e.V
>> and 2 from The QT Company, it seems difficult to imagine that it would continue
>> to exist as such, or be still relevant, in the event The QT company would
>> execute their 12-month-delay plan. And before financially supporting the KDE
>> Free Qt foundation or whatever other body would represent best the interests of
>> a FOSS QT (I guess a new body gathering together KDE, KDAB and all other parties
>> would be more relevant in the event a FOSS QT fork would be needed), we should
>> probably have a look at its current finances/budget (from a quick search,
>> couldn't find one regarding KDE Free Qt foundation, apart from the 200 000 KRO
>> founding capital mentionned in their status [1])
> 
> Thanks for raising this point, this would indeed be something to look at
> carefully. I agree in case of a fork, the governance model would be transformed,
> and I hope the new organization and related awaited transparency would make the
> financing choice easy to do.
> 
> But we are not there yet.
> 
> I also agree with Nyall that technically, impacts on QGIS would not necessarily
> be big. Having a more open Qt project, with easier contributions and bugfixing
> could help QGIS though.
> But generally speaking QGIS, as a big and successful opensource project, now
> also has the responsibility to voice opinions and defend Opensource / libre
> software models of organization whenever they are at stake in its ecosystem.
> 
> It seems like this is a good time to do it.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Vincent
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> 

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - QGIS.ORG Chair
www.faunalia.eu:
training, support, development on QGIS, PostGIS and more