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

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi all,
any news on this? Can we have a special PSC Meeting on this?
I suggest either tomorrow 23 Apr afternoon h 17 or Monday 27 same hour.
Cheers.

Il 10/04/20 14:40, Paolo Cavallini ha scritto:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> Il 10/04/20 12:49, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
> 
>> I am afraid that the contacts between KDAB and myself are mainly of
>> administrative nature. I don't know any influential persons there and I
>> doubt that the accountant would help us much in this respect. I also
>> vaguely know a "Business Development Manager" there, named Michael
>> Freer. He might be a useful contact. But again: KDAB is not the culprit
>> here. They are probably also "victims" like us, but likely with a closer
>> involvement with QT and the QT Company than us.
> 
> Yes, that's why I suggested trying to contact them. We should be
> basically in the same boat, it would be good to agree on a common course
> of actions.
> 
>> However, before starting to send out uncoordinated e-mails here and
>> there, I'd prefer if the PSC, together with selected core developers who
>> know something about the issue take the time to work on a collaborative
>> document where we cite statements from the QT company that are of
>> concern to us and summarize a statement from us including ideas how to
>> solve the conflict.
> 
> I understand your point. However, I believe things are still muddy, and
> I'd like to have more flesh before discussing further.
> 
>> Can we schedule an extraordinary PSC meeting with invited other experts
>> for this next week?
> 
> I'm available for it.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
>> Am 10.04.20 um 11:29 schrieb 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