Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Thanks for your great inputs Matthias. Yes we (Nyall and myself)  probably used 
some alarming words at the start of the thread like ‘MIT’….but to all reading 
don’t get sidetracked by that on focus rather on the idea that QGIS as a 
project should be able to meet future challenges and adapt to them. While some 
people made dismissive comments about one platform or another, don’t let your 
personal bias towards or against a platform cloud the issue. If our goal is to 
make QGIS available only on a platform that we like we miss the point of making 
a mass appeal GIS that everyone can run on their preferred device. I would far 
prefer a situation where QGIS.org holds the ability to change licence (think 
micro-tweaks rather than all out change to MIT or some other license) to meet 
with changing times. If we want to achieve that, we need to start sooner or 
later getting past and present contributors to assign their work to QGIS.org. 
In my mind this is exactly the kind of reason we went to all the trouble of 
creating QGIS.org and we should use the organisation to our combined benefit. 
Even if we cannot get every developer to sign over their code to QGIS.org, over 
time the delta between signed over code and non signed over code will get small 
enough that we can replace code that isn’t signed over if needed …..


Regards

Tim


> On 16 Nov 2018, at 15:20, Matthias Kuhn  wrote:
> 
> Am I too late for the party? Probably.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> From what I can see there are different sides to this discussion:
> 
> * Is a (potential) license change feasible
> 
> This question is very hard to answer since there are a lot of
> stakeholders and uncertainties attached to it.
> 
> I don't know, apparently it has successfully been done before on other
> projects (see VLC). I'm not gonna go into much more detail here, as I
> don't think I'll be able to help much in finding a final answer here.
> The only way to find this answer will be to actually try.
> 
> * Is a (potential) license change something we want
> 
> This is a question to be answered from each developer's individual
> standpoint.
> 
> There are so many things in QGIS, where the project structures (with
> PSC, voting members and community involved) play a huge rule in what I
> do and what happens to the code I wrote. As you all know, I'm still
> around, so you can interpret that I am in general happy with what's
> happening. All in all, I have a huge trust in these structures. In fact,
> I think I tell people similarly often how proud I am of our projects
> structures as I tell them about how proud I am of the product itself. I
> truly believe, that these structures are sustainable enough to withstand
> an unfriendly takeover.
> 
> The past has also shown, that forks kept in private (n.b. in a GPL
> compliant way) could not stop the main and completely open QGIS to be
> the thing that people actually want. The most important part license
> wise for me is, that QGIS is freely available for anyone on whatever
> platform wherever he may be and that he is able to use its functionality
> and adjust it to his needs if he wishes to do so.
> 
> Given that, I would seriously consider to give the PSC the power to
> adjust the license for good reasons. Ask me and you'll have good chances
> to get that. At least I know that in the "worst case" and (totally
> unexpected) abuse of those rights we're still be able to fork under the
> GPL terms.
> 
> Last but not least, a license has been chosen by a person or a group of
> people at a given point in time. Knowledge at this point in time by the
> people in charge is what is taken into account when choosing a license.
> The outside world can move on and change and new requirements to
> licenses can come up which are not covered by the original license.
> 
> An example: it should be possible to provide QGIS as a service via a
> remote desktop like cloud platform and change whatever you want without
> being forced to publish the source code with the current license (Note:
> I'm not a lawyer). At the same time it's really hard to distribute QGIS
> based public code to Apple tablets with the current license (Note: I'm
> not a lawyer). Personally I'd prefer things to be vice versa.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Matthias
> 
> On 11/10/18 3:55 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
>> Paolo Cavallini  writes:
>> 
>>> thanks for this discussion. I'm also pretty sure getting a property
>>> transfer from all developers will be difficult if not impossible (quite
>>> a few devs even disappeared from the radar, not easy to find them again).
>>> 
>>> A possible intermediate step would be to:
>>> 
>>> * get the transfer of code property to QGIS.ORG only from those
>>> developers who are happy to do it
>> That makes sense, but wrapped up in that question is:
>> 
>>  what is the reciprocal covenant about future licensing that goes with
>>  the copyright assignment?
>> 
>> or perhaps you really mean "assignment with no reciprocal covenant at
>> all, from those 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Matthias Kuhn]

On 11/16/18 2:47 PM, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:21 PM Matthias Kuhn  > wrote:
>
> Am I too late for the party? Probably.
>
>
> An example: it should be possible to provide QGIS as a service via a
> remote desktop like cloud platform and change whatever you want
> without
> being forced to publish the source code with the current license
> (Note:
> I'm not a lawyer). At the same time it's really hard to distribute
> QGIS
> based public code to Apple tablets with the current license (Note: I'm
> not a lawyer). Personally I'd prefer things to be vice versa.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer either, but the GPL does not prevent SAAS, AGPL does.

Thanks Alessandro, that's exactly the point I wanted to make (without
mentioning an alternative).

With the GPL which is in place right now to my knowledge it's possible
to provide QAAS without sharing the code. Sorry that it was possible to
misread the sentence in the complete opposite way.

Matthias Kuhn

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Alessandro Pasotti]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:21 PM Matthias Kuhn  wrote:

> Am I too late for the party? Probably.
>
>
> An example: it should be possible to provide QGIS as a service via a
> remote desktop like cloud platform and change whatever you want without
> being forced to publish the source code with the current license (Note:
> I'm not a lawyer). At the same time it's really hard to distribute QGIS
> based public code to Apple tablets with the current license (Note: I'm
> not a lawyer). Personally I'd prefer things to be vice versa.
>

I'm not a lawyer either, but the GPL does not prevent SAAS, AGPL does.

-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi all,

On 11/16/18 2:20 PM, Matthias Kuhn wrote:
> An example: it should be possible to provide QGIS as a service via a
> remote desktop like cloud platform and change whatever you want without
> being forced to publish the source code with the current license (Note:
> I'm not a lawyer). At the same time it's really hard to distribute QGIS
> based public code to Apple tablets with the current license (Note: I'm
> not a lawyer). Personally I'd prefer things to be vice versa.


I think most if not all of us agree with this.

All the best.

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Matthias Kuhn]

Am I too late for the party? Probably.

Anyway...

From what I can see there are different sides to this discussion:

* Is a (potential) license change feasible

This question is very hard to answer since there are a lot of
stakeholders and uncertainties attached to it.

I don't know, apparently it has successfully been done before on other
projects (see VLC). I'm not gonna go into much more detail here, as I
don't think I'll be able to help much in finding a final answer here.
The only way to find this answer will be to actually try.

* Is a (potential) license change something we want

This is a question to be answered from each developer's individual
standpoint.

There are so many things in QGIS, where the project structures (with
PSC, voting members and community involved) play a huge rule in what I
do and what happens to the code I wrote. As you all know, I'm still
around, so you can interpret that I am in general happy with what's
happening. All in all, I have a huge trust in these structures. In fact,
I think I tell people similarly often how proud I am of our projects
structures as I tell them about how proud I am of the product itself. I
truly believe, that these structures are sustainable enough to withstand
an unfriendly takeover.

The past has also shown, that forks kept in private (n.b. in a GPL
compliant way) could not stop the main and completely open QGIS to be
the thing that people actually want. The most important part license
wise for me is, that QGIS is freely available for anyone on whatever
platform wherever he may be and that he is able to use its functionality
and adjust it to his needs if he wishes to do so.

Given that, I would seriously consider to give the PSC the power to
adjust the license for good reasons. Ask me and you'll have good chances
to get that. At least I know that in the "worst case" and (totally
unexpected) abuse of those rights we're still be able to fork under the
GPL terms.

Last but not least, a license has been chosen by a person or a group of
people at a given point in time. Knowledge at this point in time by the
people in charge is what is taken into account when choosing a license.
The outside world can move on and change and new requirements to
licenses can come up which are not covered by the original license.

An example: it should be possible to provide QGIS as a service via a
remote desktop like cloud platform and change whatever you want without
being forced to publish the source code with the current license (Note:
I'm not a lawyer). At the same time it's really hard to distribute QGIS
based public code to Apple tablets with the current license (Note: I'm
not a lawyer). Personally I'd prefer things to be vice versa.

Best regards

Matthias

On 11/10/18 3:55 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

> Paolo Cavallini  writes:
>
>> thanks for this discussion. I'm also pretty sure getting a property
>> transfer from all developers will be difficult if not impossible (quite
>> a few devs even disappeared from the radar, not easy to find them again).
>>
>> A possible intermediate step would be to:
>>
>> * get the transfer of code property to QGIS.ORG only from those
>> developers who are happy to do it
> That makes sense, but wrapped up in that question is:
>
>   what is the reciprocal covenant about future licensing that goes with
>   the copyright assignment?
>
> or perhaps you really mean "assignment with no reciprocal covenant at
> all, from those who are happy to do it".
>
> The FSF assignment form that my company executed long ago (for
> contributions to GNU Radio) had a covenant to make the code available
> under Free licenses (and I can't remember the exact details), plus a
> grant back to the contributor of a license under copyright law.
>
> This text is old, but is an example
>
>   The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any
>   work "based on the Work," that takes place under the control of the
>   Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and
>   perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the
>   terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to
>   redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These
>   terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be
>   distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public
>   to pay any royalty to the Foundation or to anyone else for any
>   permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with the
>   Foundation or its agents in any way either when redistribution is
>   performed or on any other occasion.
>
>> * ask a more specific question to others (e.g. are you willing to move
>> from GPL2 to GPL3?).
>>
>> I think this is more feasible, will help building trust, will help
>> moving forward, and will make it easier (less people to contact) to do
>> further changes in the future.
> ___
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Greg Troxel]

Paolo Cavallini  writes:

> thanks for this discussion. I'm also pretty sure getting a property
> transfer from all developers will be difficult if not impossible (quite
> a few devs even disappeared from the radar, not easy to find them again).
>
> A possible intermediate step would be to:
>
> * get the transfer of code property to QGIS.ORG only from those
> developers who are happy to do it

That makes sense, but wrapped up in that question is:

  what is the reciprocal covenant about future licensing that goes with
  the copyright assignment?

or perhaps you really mean "assignment with no reciprocal covenant at
all, from those who are happy to do it".

The FSF assignment form that my company executed long ago (for
contributions to GNU Radio) had a covenant to make the code available
under Free licenses (and I can't remember the exact details), plus a
grant back to the contributor of a license under copyright law.

This text is old, but is an example

  The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Work, or of any
  work "based on the Work," that takes place under the control of the
  Foundation or its assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and
  perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the
  terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to
  redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These
  terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be
  distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public
  to pay any royalty to the Foundation or to anyone else for any
  permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with the
  Foundation or its agents in any way either when redistribution is
  performed or on any other occasion.

> * ask a more specific question to others (e.g. are you willing to move
> from GPL2 to GPL3?).
>
> I think this is more feasible, will help building trust, will help
> moving forward, and will make it easier (less people to contact) to do
> further changes in the future.
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi all,

thanks for this discussion. I'm also pretty sure getting a property
transfer from all developers will be difficult if not impossible (quite
a few devs even disappeared from the radar, not easy to find them again).

A possible intermediate step would be to:

* get the transfer of code property to QGIS.ORG only from those
developers who are happy to do it

* ask a more specific question to others (e.g. are you willing to move
from GPL2 to GPL3?).

I think this is more feasible, will help building trust, will help
moving forward, and will make it easier (less people to contact) to do
further changes in the future.

All the best.


On 11/9/18 9:31 AM, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>
> However, if we just talk about moving from GPL v2 to v3 - I think this
> would definitely be possible.
>
> A change to a more permissive license is a different thing. There you
> need really, really good arguments to convince the majority of the
> voting members, I think.
>
> Please don't see this as a PSC opinion - it is my own, personal
> opinion, and as I said, the PSC doesn't have an official "opinion" yet
> on this topic.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andreas
>
> Am 09.11.18 um 09:21 schrieb Andreas Neumann:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We talked about this very, very briefly on the PSC - and I can
>> already say that the topic is quite controversial within the PSC.
>>
>> I really don't see consensus here at the moment. And even if the PSC
>> wants to move in this direction, it is the voting members who need to
>> agree to it - and I personally doubt that a majority of them would
>> agree. The PSC (or any voting or community member) can suggest such
>> changes, but it is the voting members who decide/vote on it.
>>
>> @Nyall - if you want to raise such a voting, you are welcome to do
>> so. But it needs a proper listing of pros and cons of such a move -
>> and need to be prepared to give both sides (the proponents and the
>> opponents of such a change) a fair chance to raise their arguments.
>>
>> There are other open source projects that did such changes - so it
>> seems to be possible. But there is a fair chance that it will create
>> a lot of harm along the process (e.g. split the community into two
>> parts).
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>> Am 09.11.18 um 09:06 schrieb Alessandro Pasotti:
>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM Nyall Dawson >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm -1 on this proposal, it's not that I don't trust the PSC (that
>>> have always done an amazing job!),  but perhaps because I'm Italian,
>>> I never fully trust the "government", to me the GPL license is like
>>> the constitution and it's there to protect from the possible abuses
>>> from the "government".
>>>
>>> Also, I particularly didn't like the "(8. Replace existing code from
>>> any non-signing contributors)", it sounds like "you don't like that?
>>> We don't need you".
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Alessandro Pasotti
>>> w3:   www.itopen.it 
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
> ___
> 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

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tom Chadwin]

Perhaps we could ask the OpenStreetMap mailing list for their advice on
licensing?

That was a joke. Let's not ask the OpenStreetMap mailing list for their
advice on licensing.

Tom



-
Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon 
--
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Andreas Neumann]

However, if we just talk about moving from GPL v2 to v3 - I think this 
would definitely be possible.


A change to a more permissive license is a different thing. There you 
need really, really good arguments to convince the majority of the 
voting members, I think.


Please don't see this as a PSC opinion - it is my own, personal opinion, 
and as I said, the PSC doesn't have an official "opinion" yet on this topic.


Greetings,

Andreas

Am 09.11.18 um 09:21 schrieb Andreas Neumann:


Hi,

We talked about this very, very briefly on the PSC - and I can already 
say that the topic is quite controversial within the PSC.


I really don't see consensus here at the moment. And even if the PSC 
wants to move in this direction, it is the voting members who need to 
agree to it - and I personally doubt that a majority of them would 
agree. The PSC (or any voting or community member) can suggest such 
changes, but it is the voting members who decide/vote on it.


@Nyall - if you want to raise such a voting, you are welcome to do so. 
But it needs a proper listing of pros and cons of such a move - and 
need to be prepared to give both sides (the proponents and the 
opponents of such a change) a fair chance to raise their arguments.


There are other open source projects that did such changes - so it 
seems to be possible. But there is a fair chance that it will create a 
lot of harm along the process (e.g. split the community into two parts).


Andreas


Am 09.11.18 um 09:06 schrieb Alessandro Pasotti:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM Nyall Dawson > wrote:




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


I'm -1 on this proposal, it's not that I don't trust the PSC (that 
have always done an amazing job!),  but perhaps because I'm Italian, 
I never fully trust the "government", to me the GPL license is like 
the constitution and it's there to protect from the possible abuses 
from the "government".


Also, I particularly didn't like the "(8. Replace existing code from 
any non-signing contributors)", it sounds like "you don't like that? 
We don't need you".


--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it 

___
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
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi,

We talked about this very, very briefly on the PSC - and I can already 
say that the topic is quite controversial within the PSC.


I really don't see consensus here at the moment. And even if the PSC 
wants to move in this direction, it is the voting members who need to 
agree to it - and I personally doubt that a majority of them would 
agree. The PSC (or any voting or community member) can suggest such 
changes, but it is the voting members who decide/vote on it.


@Nyall - if you want to raise such a voting, you are welcome to do so. 
But it needs a proper listing of pros and cons of such a move - and need 
to be prepared to give both sides (the proponents and the opponents of 
such a change) a fair chance to raise their arguments.


There are other open source projects that did such changes - so it seems 
to be possible. But there is a fair chance that it will create a lot of 
harm along the process (e.g. split the community into two parts).


Andreas


Am 09.11.18 um 09:06 schrieb Alessandro Pasotti:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM Nyall Dawson > wrote:




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


I'm -1 on this proposal, it's not that I don't trust the PSC (that 
have always done an amazing job!),  but perhaps because I'm Italian, I 
never fully trust the "government", to me the GPL license is like the 
constitution and it's there to protect from the possible abuses from 
the "government".


Also, I particularly didn't like the "(8. Replace existing code from 
any non-signing contributors)", it sounds like "you don't like that? 
We don't need you".


--
Alessandro Pasotti
w3: www.itopen.it 

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Régis Haubourg]

>
>
> 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  a écrit :

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Régis Haubourg 
> 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  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  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Andreas Neumann  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
> >>  

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Alessandro Pasotti]

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:52 AM Nyall Dawson  wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
I'm -1 on this proposal, it's not that I don't trust the PSC (that have
always done an amazing job!),  but perhaps because I'm Italian, I never
fully trust the "government", to me the GPL license is like the
constitution and it's there to protect from the possible abuses from the
"government".

Also, I particularly didn't like the "(8. Replace existing code from any
non-signing contributors)", it sounds like "you don't like that? We don't
need you".

-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Nyall Dawson]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:44, Régis Haubourg  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  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  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Andreas Neumann  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 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Régis Haubourg]

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.

Debate welcome :)
Régis

Le ven. 9 nov. 2018 à 06:09, Tim Sutton  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  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>
> Andreas Neumann  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 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

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  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel  > wrote:
>> 
>> Andreas Neumann  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 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Nyall Dawson]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 00:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> Andreas Neumann  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 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Greg Troxel]

Andreas Neumann  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.
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

> On 30 Oct 2018, at 16:41, Marco Bernasocchi  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 29.10.18 20:55, Tim Sutton wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>>> On 29 Oct 2018, at 11:01, Peter Petrik >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi, 
>>> 
>>> My task is to create specific iOS application for a client that depends 
>>> only on qgis_core and qgis_quick libraries, moreover distributed strictly 
>>> outside App Store. So I assume there is a little problem with licensing 
>>> here.
>>> 
>> 
>> Isn’t geos and others needed to compile QGIS core?
> IIRC building is no issue and distributing outside of the app store is no 
> problem. That is why for QField we were exploring different distributions 
> options.
>> 
>> 
>>> Ad: iOS vs MacOS. This is similar to running full QGIS on android device, 
>>> vs running QField (or similar "reduced" application based on QtQuick). One 
>>> thing is possibility to run something somewhere, other thing is if it is 
>>> usable at all. I can imagine that it may be possible to compile and run 
>>> QGIS on a smart fridge, but ... :) If we want to ship something official 
>>> for iOS (or Android) on the official store(s), we would probably need to 
>>> agree on some  application ( of its features) based on qgis quick.
>> 
>> I think you understood me incorrectly. Their new frameworks allow running 
>> iOS apps on the desktop as native macOS apps, not the other way around. I 
>> think this has interesting use cases (I often get asked about making slimmed 
>> down versions of QGIS for people for example)….
> You could just package QField for desktop - that is how we develop on it most 
> of the time :)
> 
> 

Yeah true :-P

Regards

Tim

> 
> Cheers Marco
> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers, 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:32 PM Nyall Dawson >> > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> > One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not impossible) option 
>>> > might be for us to add an exception to the GPL license used for QGIS 
>>> > allowing its distriibuton via app stores, get every committer who has 
>>> > code in the current codebase to agree to the exception and build iOS 
>>> > packages off that. Though that would still leave a large issue of the 
>>> > dependent libraries that we use that are under GPL where the latter 
>>> > approach is even less feasible. So while I am excited at the idea of 
>>> > running QGIS on my iPad / iPhone I am wondering if this is a dead-end 
>>> > excursion in terms of making QGS generally available on iOS?
>>> >
>>> 
>>> This is opening a complete can of worms... but I've wondered for a
>>> while if we need to set up a contributor agreement which grants
>>> copyright of code to the QGIS organisation, so that we have the
>>> flexibility to relicense QGIS in future if (and ONLY IF!!)
>>> required***. Currently we are stuck with the GPLv2 or later license
>>> forever, but I can definitely see a time when we'd like to drop the
>>> "v2" and move to a pure "v3 or greater" license, or even relicense
>>> under something more permissive like the MIT license.
>>> 
>>> I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
>>> potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
>>> to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
>>> the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
>>> careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
>>> project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
>>> transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
>>> about whether this is a good idea or not.
>>> 
>>> Nyall
>>> 
>>> *** Hey Trolly mcTrollface: I'm not ever saying QGIS should go closed
>>> source. Go take your annoying breed of community troublemaking
>>> elsewhere and let us keep this discussion civil and based on facts
>>> only.
>>> ___
>>> 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 
>> 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Marco Bernasocchi]

On 29.10.18 20:55, Tim Sutton wrote:
> Hi
>
>> On 29 Oct 2018, at 11:01, Peter Petrik
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi, 
>>
>> My task is to create specific iOS application for a client that
>> depends only on qgis_core and qgis_quick libraries, moreover
>> distributed strictly outside App Store. So I assume there is a little
>> problem with licensing here.
>>
>
> Isn’t geos and others needed to compile QGIS core?
IIRC building is no issue and distributing outside of the app store is
no problem. That is why for QField we were exploring different
distributions options.
>
>
>> Ad: iOS vs MacOS. This is similar to running full QGIS on android
>> device, vs running QField (or similar "reduced" application based on
>> QtQuick). One thing is possibility to run something somewhere, other
>> thing is if it is usable at all. I can imagine that it may be
>> possible to compile and run QGIS on a smart fridge, but ... :) If we
>> want to ship something official for iOS (or Android) on the official
>> store(s), we would probably need to agree on some  application (
>> of its features) based on qgis quick.
>
> I think you understood me incorrectly. Their new frameworks allow
> running iOS apps on the desktop as native macOS apps, not the other
> way around. I think this has interesting use cases (I often get asked
> about making slimmed down versions of QGIS for people for example)….

You could just package QField for desktop - that is how we develop on it
most of the time :)


Cheers Marco

>
> Regards
>
> Tim
>
>
>>
>> Cheers, 
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:32 PM Nyall Dawson > > wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton > > wrote:
>>
>> > One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not
>> impossible) option might be for us to add an exception to the GPL
>> license used for QGIS allowing its distriibuton via app stores,
>> get every committer who has code in the current codebase to agree
>> to the exception and build iOS packages off that. Though that
>> would still leave a large issue of the dependent libraries that
>> we use that are under GPL where the latter approach is even less
>> feasible. So while I am excited at the idea of running QGIS on my
>> iPad / iPhone I am wondering if this is a dead-end excursion in
>> terms of making QGS generally available on iOS?
>> >
>>
>> This is opening a complete can of worms... but I've wondered for a
>> while if we need to set up a contributor agreement which grants
>> copyright of code to the QGIS organisation, so that we have the
>> flexibility to relicense QGIS in future if (and ONLY IF!!)
>> required***. Currently we are stuck with the GPLv2 or later license
>> forever, but I can definitely see a time when we'd like to drop the
>> "v2" and move to a pure "v3 or greater" license, or even relicense
>> under something more permissive like the MIT license.
>>
>> I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
>> potential risk to the project. There's many other open source
>> licenses
>> to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
>> the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
>> careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
>> project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
>> transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
>> about whether this is a good idea or not.
>>
>> Nyall
>>
>> *** Hey Trolly mcTrollface: I'm not ever saying QGIS should go closed
>> source. Go take your annoying breed of community troublemaking
>> elsewhere and let us keep this discussion civil and based on facts
>> only.
>> ___
>> 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
-- 
Marco Bernasocchi
QGIS.org Co-chair
ma...@opengis.ch 
+41 (0)79 467 24 70 

OPENGIS.ch Logo 

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Marco Bernasocchi]

Hi Peter

On 29.10.18 15:00, Peter Petrik wrote:
>  Maybe a misunderstanding, I do not suggest to start a new mobile
> project. My whole point was that it is not possible to have the same
> application for desktop and mobile devices with same set of widgets
> and features.

Great to hear, you cost me some new gray hairs yesterday :D

have a great day

Marco

-- 
Marco Bernasocchi
QGIS.org Co-chair
ma...@opengis.ch 
+41 (0)79 467 24 70 

OPENGIS.ch Logo 
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

> On 30 Oct 2018, at 15:08, Andreas Neumann  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 

Sounds like a good case for running a survey of the developers!

Regards

Tim

> On 2018-10-30 13:28, Denis Rouzaud wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le mar. 30 oct. 2018 à 01:44, Tim Sutton > > a écrit :
>>  
>> I think there are other things we could do, like introducing this 
>> non-retrospectively, so that any new code coming in is ceded to QGIS.org 
>>  ownership and we leave whatever is in the code base 
>> as-is. Devs could cede their previous work to QGIS.org  on 
>> an individual basis if they want to. Over time the bulk of the code may 
>> naturally become the copyright of QGIS.org  (think version 
>> 10 here...)
>>  
>> It might be even worth starting it on parallel (as the above provess might 
>> take a year or more). The contributors curve has more an exponential than 
>> linear shape lately. 
>>  
>>  
>> -- 
>> Denis Rouzaud
>> de...@opengis.ch  
>> +41 76 370 21 22 
>>   
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi, 

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. 

Greetings, 

Andreas 

On 2018-10-30 13:28, Denis Rouzaud wrote:

> Le mar. 30 oct. 2018 à 01:44, Tim Sutton  a écrit : 
> 
>> I think there are other things we could do, like introducing this 
>> non-retrospectively, so that any new code coming in is ceded to QGIS.org [1] 
>> ownership and we leave whatever is in the code base as-is. Devs could cede 
>> their previous work to QGIS.org [1] on an individual basis if they want to. 
>> Over time the bulk of the code may naturally become the copyright of 
>> QGIS.org [1] (think version 10 here...)
> 
> It might be even worth starting it on parallel (as the above provess might 
> take a year or more). The contributors curve has more an exponential than 
> linear shape lately.  
> 
> -- 
> 
> Denis Rouzaud
> de...@opengis.ch 
> +41 76 370 21 22 [2] 
> 
> [2] 
> ___
> 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

 

Links:
--
[1] http://QGIS.org
[2] http://kolabnow.com/./#NOP___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Denis Rouzaud]

Le mar. 30 oct. 2018 à 01:44, Tim Sutton  a écrit :


> I think there are other things we could do, like introducing this
> non-retrospectively, so that any new code coming in is ceded to QGIS.org
> ownership and we leave whatever is in the code base as-is. Devs could cede
> their previous work to QGIS.org on an individual basis if they want to.
> Over time the bulk of the code may naturally become the copyright of
> QGIS.org (think version 10 here…)
>

It might be even worth starting it on parallel (as the above provess might
take a year or more). The contributors curve has more an exponential than
linear shape lately.


-- 

Denis Rouzaud
de...@opengis.ch  
+41 76 370 21 22
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi all,


Il 10/30/2018 06:44 AM, Tim Sutton ha scritto:
> Hi
>
>> On 30 Oct 2018, at 00:44, Nyall Dawson > > wrote:
>
>>
>> Ideally I'd agree with the sentiment here, but a large number of our
>> developers can't attend these hackfests. (And as witnessed by the bug
>> tracker discussion this leads to lack of ownership of a decision by
>> those not in attendance).
>>
>> Maybe something like this would be a possible approach:
>>
>> 1. PSC discuss whether this is something they want to pursue as an
>> organisation or not. If not, end of discussion.
>
> Agreed - QGIS.org  needs to decide whether it wants
> to hold all the copyright for the QGIS code base.
>
I think before proceeding with this approach we should check with the
main devs if they would possibly agree with a change - if not, the whole
thing has little practical chance of surviving.
All the best.

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

> On 30 Oct 2018, at 00:44, Nyall Dawson  wrote:
> 
>> 


> 
> Ideally I'd agree with the sentiment here, but a large number of our
> developers can't attend these hackfests. (And as witnessed by the bug
> tracker discussion this leads to lack of ownership of a decision by
> those not in attendance).
> 
> Maybe something like this would be a possible approach:
> 
> 1. PSC discuss whether this is something they want to pursue as an
> organisation or not. If not, end of discussion.

Agreed - QGIS.org needs to decide whether it wants to hold all the copyright 
for the QGIS code base.

> 2. Create a QEP page for central discussion on the point. Advertisie
> initially on mailing lists.

Agreed

> 3. When enough discussion (and hopefully, consensus) has been reached
> on a possible approach, send a link to the QEP discussion to all known
> contributors for wider feedback. If no consensus, end of discussion.

Agreed

> 4. If there is general approval amongst contributors  AND is appears
> to be possible to advance then PSC/org get legal advise before
> proceeding. If not legally possible, end of discussion.

Maybe this step is better done up front - pointless writing QEP’s etc if we 
don’t have the legal capacity to be the rights owner. Though I would expect 
this is a formality and would be very surprised if QGIS.org could not be the 
rights owner...


> 5. Formalise the proposal into some legally binding agreement

Agreed, 

> 6. Get voting members to vote on proposal (maybe 5/6 would be
> flipped?). If vote is declined, end of discussion.

Are they voting that they are OK with QGIS.org holding the rights? I would make 
it 5/6 of actual votes to prevent voter apathy killing the initiative….


> 7. Get existing contributors to sign the agreement.

As mentioned I would make it 'contributors of what is in a snapshot of the 
current codebase'. We do this by making a fork with no revision history and 
leave the existing repo with current GPL license and revision history intact. 
Then we only contact devs who have code in the fork.

> (8. Replace existing code from any non-signing contributors)


Agreed

> 9. Put process in place for new contributors to agree to agreement
> before contributions are allowed.

Agreed: We can automate the process by using a tool like: 
https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant (I think there are a few of them 
out there)...


> 
> I realise that this is a long and potentially difficult path, but many
> other projects have successfully navigated it. And I think we should
> at least explore it, if for no other reason then to know if we never
> need to have this discussion again :)


I have often thought about this over the years - no particularly for iOS which 
spawned the discussion, but to remove a huge roadblock for us ever 
pragmatically tweaking our license.

If the above path fails, I think there are other things we could do, like 
introducing this non-retrospectively, so that any new code coming in is ceded 
to QGIS.org ownership and we leave whatever is in the code base as-is. Devs 
could cede their previous work to QGIS.org on an individual basis if they want 
to. Over time the bulk of the code may naturally become the copyright of 
QGIS.org (think version 10 here…)


Thanks for the nice breakdown Nyall…

Regards

Tim



> 
> Nyall
> 
> 
>> Thanks Nyall for the suggestion.
>> 
>> --
>> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu 
>> QGIS.ORG  Chair:
>> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/ 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Nyall Dawson]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 01:10, Paolo Cavallini  wrote:
>
> Hi Nyall, all
>
>
> Il 10/28/2018 10:31 PM, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:
> >
> > I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
> > potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
> > to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
> > the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
> > careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
> > project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
> > transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
> > about whether this is a good idea or not.
> >
> I think this is such a strategic, and potentially divisive, issue that
> it would be better to discuss it in person. I suggest to schedule ti for
> the next HF.

Ideally I'd agree with the sentiment here, but a large number of our
developers can't attend these hackfests. (And as witnessed by the bug
tracker discussion this leads to lack of ownership of a decision by
those not in attendance).

Maybe something like this would be a possible approach:

1. PSC discuss whether this is something they want to pursue as an
organisation or not. If not, end of discussion.
2. Create a QEP page for central discussion on the point. Advertisie
initially on mailing lists.
3. When enough discussion (and hopefully, consensus) has been reached
on a possible approach, send a link to the QEP discussion to all known
contributors for wider feedback. If no consensus, end of discussion.
4. If there is general approval amongst contributors  AND is appears
to be possible to advance then PSC/org get legal advise before
proceeding. If not legally possible, end of discussion.
5. Formalise the proposal into some legally binding agreement
6. Get voting members to vote on proposal (maybe 5/6 would be
flipped?). If vote is declined, end of discussion.
7. Get existing contributors to sign the agreement.
(8. Replace existing code from any non-signing contributors)
9. Put process in place for new contributors to agree to agreement
before contributions are allowed.

I realise that this is a long and potentially difficult path, but many
other projects have successfully navigated it. And I think we should
at least explore it, if for no other reason then to know if we never
need to have this discussion again :)

Nyall


> Thanks Nyall for the suggestion.
>
> --
> Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
> QGIS.ORG Chair:
> http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

> On 29 Oct 2018, at 11:01, Peter Petrik  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> My task is to create specific iOS application for a client that depends only 
> on qgis_core and qgis_quick libraries, moreover distributed strictly outside 
> App Store. So I assume there is a little problem with licensing here.
> 

Isn’t geos and others needed to compile QGIS core?


> Ad: iOS vs MacOS. This is similar to running full QGIS on android device, vs 
> running QField (or similar "reduced" application based on QtQuick). One thing 
> is possibility to run something somewhere, other thing is if it is usable at 
> all. I can imagine that it may be possible to compile and run QGIS on a smart 
> fridge, but ... :) If we want to ship something official for iOS (or Android) 
> on the official store(s), we would probably need to agree on some  
> application ( of its features) based on qgis quick.

I think you understood me incorrectly. Their new frameworks allow running iOS 
apps on the desktop as native macOS apps, not the other way around. I think 
this has interesting use cases (I often get asked about making slimmed down 
versions of QGIS for people for example)….

Regards

Tim


> 
> Cheers, 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:32 PM Nyall Dawson  > wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton  > wrote:
> 
> > One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not impossible) option 
> > might be for us to add an exception to the GPL license used for QGIS 
> > allowing its distriibuton via app stores, get every committer who has code 
> > in the current codebase to agree to the exception and build iOS packages 
> > off that. Though that would still leave a large issue of the dependent 
> > libraries that we use that are under GPL where the latter approach is even 
> > less feasible. So while I am excited at the idea of running QGIS on my iPad 
> > / iPhone I am wondering if this is a dead-end excursion in terms of making 
> > QGS generally available on iOS?
> >
> 
> This is opening a complete can of worms... but I've wondered for a
> while if we need to set up a contributor agreement which grants
> copyright of code to the QGIS organisation, so that we have the
> flexibility to relicense QGIS in future if (and ONLY IF!!)
> required***. Currently we are stuck with the GPLv2 or later license
> forever, but I can definitely see a time when we'd like to drop the
> "v2" and move to a pure "v3 or greater" license, or even relicense
> under something more permissive like the MIT license.
> 
> I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
> potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
> to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
> the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
> careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
> project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
> transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
> about whether this is a good idea or not.
> 
> Nyall
> 
> *** Hey Trolly mcTrollface: I'm not ever saying QGIS should go closed
> source. Go take your annoying breed of community troublemaking
> elsewhere and let us keep this discussion civil and based on facts
> only.
> ___
> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Hi

> On 28 Oct 2018, at 23:31, Nyall Dawson  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton  wrote:
> 
>> One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not impossible) option 
>> might be for us to add an exception to the GPL license used for QGIS 
>> allowing its distriibuton via app stores, get every committer who has code 
>> in the current codebase to agree to the exception and build iOS packages off 
>> that. Though that would still leave a large issue of the dependent libraries 
>> that we use that are under GPL where the latter approach is even less 
>> feasible. So while I am excited at the idea of running QGIS on my iPad / 
>> iPhone I am wondering if this is a dead-end excursion in terms of making QGS 
>> generally available on iOS?
>> 
> 
> This is opening a complete can of worms... but I've wondered for a
> while if we need to set up a contributor agreement which grants
> copyright of code to the QGIS organisation, so that we have the
> flexibility to relicense QGIS in future if (and ONLY IF!!)
> required***. Currently we are stuck with the GPLv2 or later license
> forever, but I can definitely see a time when we'd like to drop the
> "v2" and move to a pure "v3 or greater" license, or even relicense
> under something more permissive like the MIT license.
> 
> I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
> potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
> to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
> the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
> careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
> project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
> transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
> about whether this is a good idea or not.

I’m also +1 on this approach (ceding copyright to QGIS.org for any incoming 
commits). Bigger headache is trying to get all legacy code signed over to 
QGIS.org. I would also prefer to go MIT or some liberal license. We would still 
have the issue that all the dependencies we use have their own licenses…. 
Theoretically we could take a snapshot of the current master, and track down 
only the committers that have touched that code rather than every historical 
committer which might make the task marginally easier. Anyhow I guess we are 
firmly in fantasy land here :-)

Regards

Tim

> 
> Nyall
> 
> *** Hey Trolly mcTrollface: I'm not ever saying QGIS should go closed
> source. Go take your annoying breed of community troublemaking
> elsewhere and let us keep this discussion civil and based on facts
> only.
> ___
> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi Nyall, all


Il 10/28/2018 10:31 PM, Nyall Dawson ha scritto:
>
> I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
> potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
> to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
> the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
> careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
> project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
> transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
> about whether this is a good idea or not.
>
I think this is such a strategic, and potentially divisive, issue that
it would be better to discuss it in person. I suggest to schedule ti for
the next HF.
Thanks Nyall for the suggestion.

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/

___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Peter Petrik]

Hi,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 2:39 PM Marco Bernasocchi  wrote:

> Hi,
> On 29.10.18 10:01, Peter Petrik wrote:
>
>
>
> Ad: iOS vs MacOS. This is similar to running full QGIS on android device,
> vs running QField (or similar "reduced" application based on QtQuick). One
> thing is possibility to run something somewhere, other thing is if it is
> usable at all. I can imagine that it may be possible to compile and run
> QGIS on a smart fridge, but ... :)
>
> I absolutely agree with you here, this is why I planned QGIS for android
> as I did:
> - first let’s get it to run on android with the same UI, port all the base
> libs and do all the background work and get a decent version functioning.
> QGIS for android just had basic optimizations for mobile devices and touch
> screens (which btw were implemented so to allow any touch screen to be
> used, and not only android) but was very well received and funny enough we
> still get requests for updating it.
> - Then shift the focus on the UI and UX and replace it completely. And
> that Is why we created QField. We originally called it QGIS mobile but
> quickly changed it to not go against the QGIS trademark rules.
>
> If we want to ship something official for iOS (or Android) on the official
> store(s), we would probably need to agree on some  application ( of its
> features) based on qgis quick.
>
> Where does the need for another official QGIS mobile application come
> from? QGIS quick is based on the extracted core modules of QField so they
> could be reused for custom applications.
> QField has over 100K downloads, is fully open source,has pushed QGIS
> forward by pushing things to QGIS core instead of just to the app. And -
> foremost - is the origin of QGIS quick and could be ported to iOS with the
> same distribution caveats like any other QGIS based app.
>
> I’d really would rather see some more help coming to QField than investing
> a lot of time to get to somewhere where QField already is.
>
 Maybe a misunderstanding, I do not suggest to start a new mobile project.
My whole point was that it is not possible to have the same application for
desktop and mobile devices with same set of widgets and features.

> Cheers Marco
>
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> --
> Marco Bernasocchi
> QGIS.org Co-chair
> ma...@opengis.ch
> +41 (0)79 467 24 70 <+41794672470>
>
> [image: OPENGIS.ch Logo] 
>
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Marco Bernasocchi]

Hi,

On 29.10.18 10:01, Peter Petrik wrote:
>
>
> Ad: iOS vs MacOS. This is similar to running full QGIS on android
> device, vs running QField (or similar "reduced" application based on
> QtQuick). One thing is possibility to run something somewhere, other
> thing is if it is usable at all. I can imagine that it may be possible
> to compile and run QGIS on a smart fridge, but ... :)
I absolutely agree with you here, this is why I planned QGIS for android
as I did:
- first let’s get it to run on android with the same UI, port all the
base libs and do all the background work and get a decent version
functioning. QGIS for android just had basic optimizations for mobile
devices and touch screens (which btw were implemented so to allow any
touch screen to be used, and not only android) but was very well
received and funny enough we still get requests for updating it.
- Then shift the focus on the UI and UX and replace it completely. And
that Is why we created QField. We originally called it QGIS mobile but
quickly changed it to not go against the QGIS trademark rules.

> If we want to ship something official for iOS (or Android) on the
> official store(s), we would probably need to agree on some
>  application ( of its features) based on qgis quick.
Where does the need for another official QGIS mobile application come
from? QGIS quick is based on the extracted core modules of QField so
they could be reused for custom applications.
QField has over 100K downloads, is fully open source,has pushed QGIS
forward by pushing things to QGIS core instead of just to the app. And -
foremost - is the origin of QGIS quick and could be ported to iOS with
the same distribution caveats like any other QGIS based app.

I’d really would rather see some more help coming to QField than
investing a lot of time to get to somewhere where QField already is.

Cheers Marco

>
> Cheers, 
> Peter
>
-- 
Marco Bernasocchi
QGIS.org Co-chair
ma...@opengis.ch 
+41 (0)79 467 24 70 

OPENGIS.ch Logo 
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Peter Petrik]

Hi,

My task is to create specific iOS application for a client that depends
only on qgis_core and qgis_quick libraries, moreover distributed strictly
outside App Store. So I assume there is a little problem with licensing
here.

Ad: iOS vs MacOS. This is similar to running full QGIS on android device,
vs running QField (or similar "reduced" application based on QtQuick). One
thing is possibility to run something somewhere, other thing is if it is
usable at all. I can imagine that it may be possible to compile and run
QGIS on a smart fridge, but ... :) If we want to ship something official
for iOS (or Android) on the official store(s), we would probably need to
agree on some  application ( of its features) based on qgis quick.

Cheers,
Peter



On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:32 PM Nyall Dawson 
wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton  wrote:
>
> > One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not impossible) option
> might be for us to add an exception to the GPL license used for QGIS
> allowing its distriibuton via app stores, get every committer who has code
> in the current codebase to agree to the exception and build iOS packages
> off that. Though that would still leave a large issue of the dependent
> libraries that we use that are under GPL where the latter approach is even
> less feasible. So while I am excited at the idea of running QGIS on my iPad
> / iPhone I am wondering if this is a dead-end excursion in terms of making
> QGS generally available on iOS?
> >
>
> This is opening a complete can of worms... but I've wondered for a
> while if we need to set up a contributor agreement which grants
> copyright of code to the QGIS organisation, so that we have the
> flexibility to relicense QGIS in future if (and ONLY IF!!)
> required***. Currently we are stuck with the GPLv2 or later license
> forever, but I can definitely see a time when we'd like to drop the
> "v2" and move to a pure "v3 or greater" license, or even relicense
> under something more permissive like the MIT license.
>
> I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
> potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
> to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
> the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
> careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
> project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
> transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
> about whether this is a good idea or not.
>
> Nyall
>
> *** Hey Trolly mcTrollface: I'm not ever saying QGIS should go closed
> source. Go take your annoying breed of community troublemaking
> elsewhere and let us keep this discussion civil and based on facts
> only.
> ___
> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Nyall Dawson]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton  wrote:

> One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not impossible) option 
> might be for us to add an exception to the GPL license used for QGIS allowing 
> its distriibuton via app stores, get every committer who has code in the 
> current codebase to agree to the exception and build iOS packages off that. 
> Though that would still leave a large issue of the dependent libraries that 
> we use that are under GPL where the latter approach is even less feasible. So 
> while I am excited at the idea of running QGIS on my iPad / iPhone I am 
> wondering if this is a dead-end excursion in terms of making QGS generally 
> available on iOS?
>

This is opening a complete can of worms... but I've wondered for a
while if we need to set up a contributor agreement which grants
copyright of code to the QGIS organisation, so that we have the
flexibility to relicense QGIS in future if (and ONLY IF!!)
required***. Currently we are stuck with the GPLv2 or later license
forever, but I can definitely see a time when we'd like to drop the
"v2" and move to a pure "v3 or greater" license, or even relicense
under something more permissive like the MIT license.

I see this "stuck with the GPLv2 license FOREVER AND EVER" as a
potential risk to the project. There's many other open source licenses
to choose from, including some which MAY be much better to suited for
the project. But I feel confident that with the right approach,
careful wording, and legal fine print we could, at this stage of the
project, get agreement from all current contributors to a copyright
transfer agreement. So I'd like us to at least have a nice discussion
about whether this is a good idea or not.

Nyall

*** Hey Trolly mcTrollface: I'm not ever saying QGIS should go closed
source. Go take your annoying breed of community troublemaking
elsewhere and let us keep this discussion civil and based on facts
only.
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Hi


> On 24 Oct 2018, at 20:53, Marco Bernasocchi  wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim the issue is in distributing on app store,  if you are deploying via 
> other channels there is no issues IIRC.
> 

Yeah I was aware of that from previous chats with you - I was wondering if 
Peter maybe had a different / new take on the problem….

One (probably unpopular and definitely tedious if not impossible) option might 
be for us to add an exception to the GPL license used for QGIS allowing its 
distriibuton via app stores, get every committer who has code in the current 
codebase to agree to the exception and build iOS packages off that. Though that 
would still leave a large issue of the dependent libraries that we use that are 
under GPL where the latter approach is even less feasible. So while I am 
excited at the idea of running QGIS on my iPad / iPhone I am wondering if this 
is a dead-end excursion in terms of making QGS generally available on iOS?

BTW I think that in a couple of years macOS and iOS will have fused somewhat 
and whatever gets built for iOS might be expected to run on macOS too. The 
recent Mojave release has the first example iOS-on-macOS example apps shipped 
with it (check out the voice memo app on Mojave for an example).

Regards

Tim

> But I'm also interested in case you guys at Lutra had a look at the problem.
> 
> Peter Great to hear, thanks for it! I'm sure we'll eventually want to try 
> this out ;)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Marco
> 
> 
> 
> On 24.10.18 00:27, Tim Sutton wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> 
>> Wow! This is awesome stuff…..what is your take on the licensing side of 
>> things (in terms of GPL/LGPL code deployed on iOS)? I for one look eagerly 
>> forward to being able to make / run QGIS based apps on my iOS devices so 
>> thanks so much for your work here!
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>>> On 23 Oct 2018, at 15:50, Peter Petrik >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> we have finished prototyping study to prove that QgsQuick based application 
>>> can be run on iOS platform (iPhone, iPad). We managed to run application on 
>>> iPad with in-memory vector layer. To have a proper demo, we would need to 
>>> be able to compile other providers as static libraries, which can take some 
>>> time.
>>> 
>>> For those brave enough and with a week of spare time, here is the code that 
>>> can be used to compile it.
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/qgis-quick-demo-app-ios 
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/OSGeo4iOS 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks to https://www.gigaclear.com  for 
>>> funding the effort.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>> ___
>>> 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 
>> -- 
> Marco Bernasocchi
> QGIS.org Co-chair
> ma...@opengis.ch  
> +41 (0)79 467 24 70 
> 
>  
—








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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Marco Bernasocchi]

Hi Tim the issue is in distributing on app store,  if you are deploying
via other channels there is no issues IIRC. But I'm also interested in
case you guys at Lutra had a look at the problem.

Peter Great to hear, thanks for it! I'm sure we'll eventually want to
try this out ;)

Cheers

Marco


On 24.10.18 00:27, Tim Sutton wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> Wow! This is awesome stuff…..what is your take on the licensing side
> of things (in terms of GPL/LGPL code deployed on iOS)? I for one look
> eagerly forward to being able to make / run QGIS based apps on my iOS
> devices so thanks so much for your work here!
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tim
>
>> On 23 Oct 2018, at 15:50, Peter Petrik
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> we have finished prototyping study to prove that QgsQuick based
>> application can be run on iOS platform (iPhone, iPad). We managed to
>> run application on iPad with in-memory vector layer. To have a proper
>> demo, we would need to be able to compile other providers as static
>> libraries, which can take some time.
>>
>> For those brave enough and with a week of spare time, here is the
>> code that can be used to compile it.
>>
>> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/qgis-quick-demo-app-ios
>> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/OSGeo4iOS
>>
>> Thanks to https://www.gigaclear.com  for
>> funding the effort.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> ___
>> 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
-- 
Marco Bernasocchi
QGIS.org Co-chair
ma...@opengis.ch 
+41 (0)79 467 24 70 

OPENGIS.ch Logo 
___
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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Peter Petrik]

Hi,

I am not a lawyer, but I think it we cannot distribute GPL licensed
software through App Store (e.g.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement)
But
we can still look back at floppy disks distributions :)

Peter


On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:27 AM Tim Sutton  wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> Wow! This is awesome stuff…..what is your take on the licensing side of
> things (in terms of GPL/LGPL code deployed on iOS)? I for one look eagerly
> forward to being able to make / run QGIS based apps on my iOS devices so
> thanks so much for your work here!
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tim
>
> On 23 Oct 2018, at 15:50, Peter Petrik 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> we have finished prototyping study to prove that QgsQuick based
> application can be run on iOS platform (iPhone, iPad). We managed to run
> application on iPad with in-memory vector layer. To have a proper demo, we
> would need to be able to compile other providers as static libraries, which
> can take some time.
>
> For those brave enough and with a week of spare time, here is the code
> that can be used to compile it.
>
> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/qgis-quick-demo-app-ios
> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/OSGeo4iOS
>
> Thanks to https://www.gigaclear.com for funding the effort.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ___
> 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

Re: [QGIS-Developer] iOS prototyping

[Tim Sutton]

Hi


Wow! This is awesome stuff…..what is your take on the licensing side of things 
(in terms of GPL/LGPL code deployed on iOS)? I for one look eagerly forward to 
being able to make / run QGIS based apps on my iOS devices so thanks so much 
for your work here!


Regards

Tim

> On 23 Oct 2018, at 15:50, Peter Petrik  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> we have finished prototyping study to prove that QgsQuick based application 
> can be run on iOS platform (iPhone, iPad). We managed to run application on 
> iPad with in-memory vector layer. To have a proper demo, we would need to be 
> able to compile other providers as static libraries, which can take some time.
> 
> For those brave enough and with a week of spare time, here is the code that 
> can be used to compile it.
> 
> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/qgis-quick-demo-app-ios 
> 
> https://github.com/lutraconsulting/OSGeo4iOS 
> 
> 
> Thanks to https://www.gigaclear.com  for funding 
> the effort.
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ___
> 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