Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> writes: > 3. A community fork would likely end up being great for Qt (my > opinion). It certainly had a huge positive impact on > OpenOffice/LibreOffice. Qt is currently REALLY difficult for new > contributors to contribute to, so it's possible a community driven > fork with more of a collaborative focus would see a bunch of new > contributors coming in. Certainly the talk on the Qt mailing lists > over the last 1-2 years has shown a huge amount of dissatisfaction > with the leadership and direction taken by the Qt Company, and > complaints about how out of touch they are with their user's needs.
I think the CLA issue is a huge one, and I'm commenting only because you didn't explicitly say "proprietary relicensing CLA". I am uncomfortable with signing a CLA with an entity that is not a Free Software charity (definitions vary by country, but the point is that charities are legally obligated to act in the public interest). I also don't think that free software developers should have to grant permission for proprietary relicensing. While these views are certainly not universal, I think they are reasonably mainstream. Even among those who do not have conceptual objections, many would be cautious about signing a formal agreement. (I'd want to get legal advice before doing that, and I certainly don't want to pay a lawyer in order to give a company the right to engage in proprietary relicensing!) If Qt were forked to continue as an Free Software project (as opposed to a joint proprietary/Free project), then I would expect participation from people who didn't before because of either a distaste for proprietary relicensing or discomfort with a corporate CLA. _______________________________________________ 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
