> On Jan 13, 2021, at 4:28 PM, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 06:24, David Strip <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'm pretty clueless regarding licenses -- but this is an interesting
> thought. I wonder if any new drivers added to GDAL could be done with
> a dual-licensing under both GPL + some other license which requires
> ongoing sponsorship of the GDAL project?
License monkey business isn't viable in any way with GDAL. It would just create
confusion and erode trust, which we can't get back if broken.
The big organizations running 100,000,000s of CPU hours extracting information
from imagery they're reading in COGs with GDAL need to be donating substantial
resources into an organization that provides coordination. The last time I did
a fund raise with gdalbarn.com <http://gdalbarn.com/> I was called out for
naming some of these organizations and expressing my disappointment they
couldn't find a way to participate or simply ignored the request. Maybe they
will step forward this time around.
Whether it is in a new foundation or an existing one like NumFocus, substantial
resources need to be dumped in a pot that are earmarked for supporting work
that generates value for the project. Chasing new feature work to subsidize
project maintenance activities is not sustainable in two directions – burn out
for the maintainer and creeping feature-itis for the project.
It's clear what's happened in the past is a combination of luck and
graciousness by both Frank and Even.
Howard
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
