Hi > On 28 Oct 2018, at 23:31, Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 01:22, Tim Sutton <t...@kartoza.com> 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 <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
