Hi Nyall Thanks so much for articulating what I couldn’t in your email below. This is 100% what I am after too: A sensible, open discussion with an eye to maintaining the long term survival and success of the QGIS project in a changing world. I agree with everything you said down to the donation of any previous work I have made in the code base to the QGIS.org project.
Regards Tim > On 09 Nov 2018, at 04:56, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Andreas Neumann <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Before we go to far with the discussion here, I would first ask all of >>> the core devs if they really would like to do that. >>> >>> Without an agreement in place, the code is owned by each contributor >>> separately. I know of quite a few core devs who are not keen on ceding >>> their copyright to QGIS.ORG, if the goal is to undermine the GPL >>> license. >>> >>> I am also not sure if QGIS.ORG is ready to prepare such an ownership >>> agreement. >>> >>> Personally, I fail to understand what the benefits are, if we go this >>> route. On the contrary - I think we are risking to loose many core >>> contributors if we do that. >> >> I'm a lurker who has not contributed to qgis, but someday might. Within >> pkgsrc.org, a multi-os multi-arch portable packaging system, I'm one of >> the people that most frequently gets asked license questions. I >> maintain the geos/postgis entries in pkgsrc. >> >> I have contributed to a number of open source projects -- but I tend to >> find something else to do when I'm asked to sign any kind of CLA or >> copyright assignment. >> >> I think there are multiple things going on: >> >> How do people feel about accomodating Apple's ban on GPL software for >> the iOS app store? People have talked about qgis having an exception, >> but nobody has brought up talking to Apple to get them to change their >> terms. I suspect those who really believe in the GPL's purpose don't >> want to make an exception, and there will be enough such people that >> rewriting all their code is not sensible. >> >> Evolution of the license as the licensing landscape change. If we are >> talking about changing GPL2 or later to GPL3 or later, that seems >> straightforward, and I think all it takes is for core to accept some >> nontrivial code that is GPL3 or later. There is the serious question >> about not letting people copy/modify/redistribute under GPL2, but >> that's a group social question, not something that needs every >> contributor to sign off on. >> >> Change to permissive. Perhaps because of wanting to accomodate Apple, >> or for other reasons, some may want a permissive license. This is a >> huge cultural change, and I would expect a significant number of >> people would not be ok with this. >> >> Copyright assignment. This opens up the fear of a change in license >> later (to permissive or to accomodate Apple's GPL ban), which leads to >> wanting to have terms in the assignment that constrain the future >> choice. And it means asking people to sign copyright assignments >> before their code can be merged. In my view, this alienates potential >> contributors. So if qgis stays on the GPL "N or later" track, I don't >> see why this helps, and it will definitely hurt. > > Thanks for the feedback here -- it's much appreciated. > > I feel there's been substantial misunderstanding of the original > intent of my email. It wasn't designed to address any *specific* > licensing issues such as the issue with Apple's app store. (And, on a > practical level, this is a VERY REAL issue, limiting some value of > QGIS). That's all secondary to the discussion I was hoping to raise > and should be deferred to a future discussion if/when needed/possible. > > (Gosh, I can't think of how to word this well... I'll just plough > ahead and hope my intention gets through) > > Up front, know that I'm a staunch open source supporter, both from a > practical and idealistic view. I'm not interested in closed source > software and likely never will be. > > I strongly believe that the QGIS project has a fantastic governance > structure, and one which is a role model for other > projects/communities. This is all thanks to the hard work and tireless > efforts of the PSC and other members of the community. It's something > we should be intensely proud of. I know I am! In fact, I've seen time > and time again how good project governance and community in open > source projects is often worth FAR more than the code itself. > > I personally feel that the project governance structure is so strong > that I'm willing to trust it with complete ownership of YEARS of my > development work*. I've complete confidence in the project governance > that they have (and will remain to have) the best interests of the > QGIS project at heart. And in order for them to continue doing what's > necessary to ensure survival (and dominance! ;) ) of the software, I > think it's important that the organisation has some avenue in future > to be able to relicense the codebase IF there's a compelling reason > why they think it's required. > > Putting it another way: if, for whatever reason, the current license > becomes a roadblock in future which threatens the future of the > software, what do we do? I'd hate to see something like this occur and > result in the project, and all the years of effort which has been put > into it, being abandoned because we have no course of action to > address this. > > I 100% realise this is a tricky conversation... but that shouldn't > prevent us from discussing it openly and with a spirit of > collaboration. I don't think avoiding tricky discussions just because > they are tricky is ever a good approach. > > And hey, my trust in the project governance goes both ways. If they > discuss this topic and decide it's not something they want to pursue, > then I'm fine with that too. Like I said -- I trust them to run the > project and continue to do outstanding efforts on the jobs we've > elected them to do. > > Nyall > > * Heck, take this email as a legally binding agreement if you want -- > I'm granting the QGIS organisation legal entity any rights they want > to code I've written for QGIS over the years to do with whatever they > want. That's how strongly I trust them. > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer> > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer> — Tim Sutton Co-founder: Kartoza Ex Project chair: QGIS.org Visit http://kartoza.com <http://kartoza.com/> to find out about open source: Desktop GIS programming services Geospatial web development GIS Training Consulting Services Skype: timlinux IRC: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
