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

[Paolo Cavallini]

Quite right, thanks Andreas.

Il 22/04/20 09:15, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> If we do a PSC meeting on this subject, I think you should invite people
> who know more about the subject (e.g. Vincent Picavet, Even Rouault).
> Both seem to have researched the issue a bit or followed some discussion
> around it.
> 
> Or some other core QGIS dev who is more involved in qt, like Nyall and
> Matthias.
> 
> I fear that we as PSC don't know much about the situation, but we can
> listen to advice from the above listed people (or other QGIS devs who
> know something about it).
> 
> Or the PSC members can commit some time to this subject before meeting
> to prepare, otherwise I fear the meeting won't be very useful.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
> Am 22.04.20 um 09:09 schrieb 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