On 8/25/2026 4:54 PM, Greg Troxel
wrote:
Great, the next thing to check is if the terms are actually compatible. Enough people are fuzzy on licensing and willing to break the rules because they think app stores are important, that one can't conclude it's ok.
Usual caveat - I am not a lawyer.
The publisher agreement is here.
The relevant section appears to be 3b -
(b) Third-Party Rights/Open-Source Licenses. Your Offer and Offer Assets must not infringe or misappropriate any intellectual property or personal right of any third party. If you license any portion of your Offer from a third party or under any open-source license, you are solely responsible for compliance with such terms and for ensuring that Microsoft, in its capacity as your agent or commissionaire, has the necessary rights to perform its obligations to you under this Agreement. You are, at your sole cost and expense, responsible for securing, reporting, and maintaining all necessary rights, clearances, and consents and paying all licensing fees (including applicable public performance license fees or other consideration associated with providing music or video (and all content embodied therein) in and through your Offer), and for undertaking all related reporting obligations.For open source licenses, MS appears to have removed itself from the licensing pathway between the person/organization submitting the product and the customer. It is thus incumbent on the submitter to provide the means for meeting the license requirements, such as providing links to the license and source code. Perhaps these links could be in the listing in the MS Store, or in the about screen of the app. This is already the case for the license in QGIS.
Obviously an actual lawyer would need to verify this interpretation.
_______________________________________________ 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
