Thanks Nyall for the nice inputs. I put an agenda item on the next PSC meeting to see what PSC thinks.
Cheers Marco On 29.10.18 23:44, Nyall Dawson wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 01:10, Paolo Cavallini <cavall...@faunalia.it> 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 > -- Marco Bernasocchi QGIS.org Co-chair ma...@opengis.ch <mailto:ma...@opengis.ch> +41 (0)79 467 24 70 <tel:+41794672470> OPENGIS.ch Logo <https://www.opengis.ch>
_______________________________________________ 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