> > > Your concerns are very valid, but could we defer this to a different > discussion? I really want to avoid this becoming an us-vs-apple/debate > about the merit of specific licenses, and instead allow it to focus > solely on the question: >
No worries to not talks about Apple stuff here. Still, before discussiing this: "should the qgis org, with all the checks and > balances it has in place, have the power to relicense the QGIS > codebase (or not)"?. > Can someone explain clearly "Why" ? Régis Le ven. 9 nov. 2018 à 08:52, Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Régis Haubourg <regis.haubo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > I'm following this from a distant eye, not being sure to understand > clearly what is propose and what is at stake. > > > > Could someone do a brief synthesis for a broader audience? > > > > Concerning the iOS, a word a the french context. Apple hardware costs > are so expensive that I almost never see any professional GIS application > asked on those platforms. It might be different in the US for sure. > > We have more questions about linking QGIS proprietary software in closed > source solutions. And at the cultural moment we see, I see the GPL licence > more as a protection and a way to trigger discussions and cultural changes > than a real break. > > We already succeded to change some customers mind to open source their > product. I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't have been possible with a > permissive licence. > > Hi Régis! > > Your concerns are very valid, but could we defer this to a different > discussion? I really want to avoid this becoming an us-vs-apple/debate > about the merit of specific licenses, and instead allow it to focus > solely on the question: "should the qgis org, with all the checks and > balances it has in place, have the power to relicense the QGIS > codebase (or not)"?. > > Nyall > > > > > > Debate welcome :) > > Régis > > > > Le ven. 9 nov. 2018 à 06:09, Tim Sutton <t...@kartoza.com> a écrit : > >> > >> 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 <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Andreas Neumann <a.neum...@carto.net> 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 > >> QGIS-Developer@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@lists.osgeo.org > >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >> > >> > >> — > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Tim Sutton > >> > >> Co-founder: Kartoza > >> Ex Project chair: QGIS.org > >> > >> Visit 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 > >> QGIS-Developer@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@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer