[Qgis-psc] [QGIS-Developer] Theoretical discussion: A QGIS paid plugin marketplace? (was: sponsored plugin)

Fri Feb 2 08:37:24 PST 2024

Hi all,
I have been sleeping over this thread a bit.

We already have a lot of paid plugins and in the psc we try to contact
vendors to have them aware of the GPL licence obligations. This is a lot of
manual work, and this does not scale up obviously.
Offering a marketplace in our plugin management system can be really
interesting, since this would give us a way to explain GPL obligations to
authors and offer them a place to advertise their products a lot better
than letting them deal with their own systems.

That said, the same question for QGIS.org general funding and
sustainability also applies.
We have been having a better fundings this year thanks to marketing efforts
of Marco and Andreas, which allows us to consolidate some tasks, but we
still live on a very low budget compared to the size of the project.

Ideas have been thrown about using existing marketplaces (Windows store for
instance) to collect regular incomes via notarized QGIS installers, but
this is not an easy move given that we don't have permanent staff to handle
with the administrative work this gives.
Developing our own marketplace for plugins could indeed be a way to let
users do a voluntary contribution to the project when buying a plugin, or
even trade a very small percentage on sales to maintain the platform. Most
payment associative tools I know always offer this possibility, I wouldn't
be shocked personaly.

If we keep a mandatory link to a repository in plugin metadata,  where
source code is available, I think we preserve users that can't afford to
pay. We might write down market place terms of use where we ask plugin
authors for fair uses (no ads, no illegal use, security rules etc, no fake
repository that would not really allow users to get the real source code..)

And I agree with Alessandro here, having public sources availables will
still let a large audience to the payment system. QGIS' audience is so
large.

All in all, this kind of system requires more efforts to maintain
everything in place, and I would be in favor of growing up the budgets to
have dedicated persons able to handle this, just like we already manage to
do with documentation and infrastructure management (Thanks Kartozo, Lova
and Selma, you do a great job)

In short, I would be in favor of going this way, but we need to handle this
as it is: grow up QGIS.org core to be able to handle those tasks. And
growing the budget is the first thing missing maybe.

Best regards
Régis

Le ven. 2 févr. 2024 à 02:01, Emma Hain via QGIS-PSC <
qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org> a écrit :

> Hi All
> The economics of this is very interesting.
>
> As a community, we want to give something to our fellow members that they
> need. It allows for our creativity in scratching an itch, and sharing that
> solution. However, we can break the mold and work out a novel way to
> deliver. The open-source pledge North Road uses goes some way to doing
> this. Whilst there a lot of tools are within the licensed (paid) version,
> those tools are available for release once production costs are met. This
> enables the plugin to continue to deliver to those who cannot pay for the
> licensed version, whilst funding further work as technology organically
> develops or additional needs pop-up. Also note that the remuneration funds
> our support for the FOSS4G community, whether via sponsorship or applying
> resources on the committee. So the funding for the plugin gets recycled in
> the community, as well as going someway to providing a living wage.
>
> Shutting out people from the use of desired services should not be what we
> are about - there has to be another way.
>
> In regards to taking over a plugin, this is how FOSS continues, if someone
> is passionate about it, they can ask the creator to take it over. As part
> of the marketplace, the community should also have this as a service, a
> page listing the plugins that are not maintained or won't be maintained and
> is anyone available to take them over. This is a great way for up and
> coming developers to learn the craft from mentors.
>
> Keep the discussion going - this community is so creative that I think we
> will come up with an option.
>
> Cheers
> Em
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 at 22:33, C Hamilton via QGIS-Developer <
> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nyall,
>>
>> First, thank you for all that you have done over the years. You have
>> helped me a number of times in answering questions. Open source software is
>> an interesting beast. There is so much donated time without compensation
>> yet people need to feed themselves. My first QGIS plugin was in 2016 and I
>> now have 12 QGIS plugins that are published (several more that are
>> unpublished), but I am facing a dilemma. My work has funded all my
>> development except for one plugin which I did for myself. Unfortunately, I
>> was never really able to break into the ESRI culture here and a year or so
>> ago was told to stop doing further QGIS development and to focus on other
>> research. I did not find something that I liked as well so I am going to
>> retire (because I can) in May. So my dilemma is what is going to happen
>> with my plugins. I care about them. I have an agreement with another
>> organization to take over support but after the first meeting I have no
>> confidence that they will be able to do it. I will probably still fix some
>> bugs after I retire, but I am not all that interested in working for free.
>> I want to explore new hobbies in retirement so any QGIS work would be
>> minimal unless it also fits in with one of my hobbies.
>>
>> I don't know how to get compensation in the open source world unless
>> there is a company who is investing in and developing open source software.
>> It would be nice if there were a mechanism for developers to get some
>> compensation.
>>
>> This is a difficult topic to address, but I hope something comes out of
>> it.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Calvin
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 8:28 PM Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer <
>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi lists!
>>>
>>> I wanted to kick start a (hopefully!) civil, THEORETICAL discussion
>>> about the role of a paid plugin marketplace for QGIS plugins.
>>>
>>> This has been on my mind for a while, and recently was bumped by this
>>> email to the list:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 19:38, gam17--- via QGIS-Developer <
>>> qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi everyone,
>>> >     like many of you, I have developed and maintained a plugin for many
>>> > years completely free of charge.
>>> > I have never received any donation or compensation of any kind and now
>>> I
>>> > would like to find a solution.
>>> > Has anyone already found a way to receive donations?
>>> > I was thinking of asking for a sponsor that would be displayed during
>>> > execution, for example in the window titles or through a specific menu
>>> > item like QGIS does (in this way the sponsor would be much less
>>> > visible).
>>>
>>> So again, stressing that this is a THEORETICAL discussion, I'm
>>> interested in hearing people's thoughts on the potential role of a paid
>>> plugin marketplace for QGIS.
>>>
>>> Here's a bullet point dump of where I'm currently sitting:
>>>
>>> - Yes, I'm aware that plugins must be GPL, and that this makes paid
>>> plugins a little trickier in that they're obviously still subject to the
>>> GPL.
>>> - The GPL does NOT prevent charging for software, or mandate making it
>>> public to non-paying customers. We could potentially have GPL plugins which
>>> are only available to paid users, and only make these plugins available
>>> privately to those users. YES, the GPL **DOES** mean that those paying
>>> customers can redistribute the plugin publicly and freely without issue if
>>> they want (and regardless of whether the original developer wants!)
>>> - In fact, there's already likely thousands of private, paid for plugins
>>> out there! I'm talking here of plugins made specifically for internal use
>>> by one organisation only. Yep, that organisation COULD make the plugin
>>> public/freely available, but in many cases they are specific to that one
>>> organisation's needs or contain organisation sensitive logic/data. These
>>> plugins are completely compliant with the GPL, despite being private and
>>> paid for by that organisation.
>>> - There's nothing preventing a public GPL QGIS plugin from depending on
>>> a subscription based back-end, and offering zero value to anyone not paying
>>> for that backend. And there's a growing number of these plugins, which
>>> depend on users paying xxx large corporate entity regular high fees to
>>> access the backend service. The GPL doesn't (and arguably
>>> shouldn't) prevent these large entities from making money off QGIS plugins.
>>> - But this means that the current situation is unfairly weighted toward
>>> these large entities! A one-person team making an excellent plugin and
>>> providing an awesome tool for use in QGIS has a MUCH MUCH harder time
>>> finding ANY financial compensation for their efforts! I don't like this
>>> situation at all, and I'd say it goes against the "spirit" of why QGIS was
>>> made under the GPL in the first place. The big corporate entities win, the
>>> smaller community focused developers lose out. 👎
>>> - Despite the fact that a paid user could freely re-distribute a
>>> paid-for plugin, there's still potential financial gain for the developer
>>> in making a plugin available for a charge on a theoretical QGIS plugin
>>> marketplace.
>>> - The blender market is a great example of this. There's LOTS of GPL
>>> blender add ons available there at charge. Eg
>>> https://blendermarket.com/products/hard-ops--boxcutter-ultimate-bundle?num=2&src=top
>>> as one example. If those numbers are accurate, that developer has sold >35k
>>> copies of a GPL licensed add on at $39 each. I'm going to go out on a limb
>>> here and guess that that developer's motivation to make their add-on
>>> excellent is considerably higher than the developer of an equivalent QGIS
>>> plugin 🤣 (not to mention that their time investment is much more
>>> justifiable). And any ONE of those 35k paid users could have made the
>>> plugin freely available for everyone else... but that hasn't stopped the
>>> sales.
>>>
>>> So what does everyone else think? Would there be a THEORETICAL place for
>>> a THEORETICAL paid QGIS plugin marketplace somewhere in the future? Or is
>>> there a better model we could (theoretically 🤪) follow to financially
>>> reward plugin developers?
>>>
>>> Nyall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> QGIS-Developer mailing list
>>> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> QGIS-Developer mailing list
>> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>>
>
>
> --
> Emma Hain — Product Manager/Senior GIS Analyst
> emma at north-road.com
> [image: https://north-road.com]
> *North Road*
> Cartography • Development • Spatial Analysis
> ------------------------------
> *north-road.com* <http://north-road.com>
> <https://twitter.com/northroadgeo>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/north-road-studios>
> <https://www.facebook.com/North-Road-997236690392419/home>
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-PSC mailing list
> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20240202/78572f1f/attachment-0001.htm>