Open source broadly is facing something of a turning point as commercial organizations have learned how to profit from open source, but have not yet learned they have to contribute to the commons. A particularly relevant example is the case of MongoDB where cloud services were offering paid hosting while paying nothing to support the project. Gdal's situation strikes me as similar. Large commercial vendors are embedding gdal in their offerings, either directly in software delivered to users or as part of the infrastructure behind the services they provide. Some of these companies are very profitable and could well afford to pay their way. Unfortunately, it is often the case that the developer who is aware of this reliance on gdal may not be in a position to convince his/her management to ante up for the "free" software.
What is the path forward? One path Howard suggests is establishing a foundation similar to that behind Qgis. Another alternative, probably far more controversial, is a license change. MongoDB created a license class directed at the cloud suppliers who were (morally) abusing the free license terms. gdal could adopt a license that requires those bundling gdal into a commercial product or service to pay their way. As I said, this would no doubt be quite controversial. Then there's the case of "second-order" free-riders. Gdal is critical technology underlying Qgis, another free, open-source project. Should firms that contribute to the qgis foundation also contribute to gdal, or can they rely on the appropriate portion of their "dues" to be forwarded to gdal?
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
