iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

Marco Bernasocchi-2
Hi Tim,

Thanks so much for your write up I allowed myself to change the subject
. some comments inline.

On 17.03.20 11:47, Tim Sutton wrote:

> Reposting as list message was rejected due to size:
>
> Hi
>
> Thank you so much for your email @Vincent. Personally I have read your
> email below and numerous articles online about it and there is still,
> in my mind, room for posting a GPL app on the apple store - there just
> needs to be a clear path to fetch the binaries so that you can install
> it on your other systems (i.e. the contention mainly relates to the
> third freedom). This could be done in the application itself with a
> link somewhere to download the package files and notes on how to
> install it (which to be fair may be a convoluted process on some
> operating systems).
maybe that would be an interesting possibility, it need to be
investigated as it could break the apple TOS about distribution.

>
> However, in acknowledgement that there is probably never going to be
> general agreement on this, and the only conclusive way to deal with it
> is to modify our license to add an exemption for distribution via app
> stores (I would propose a general exemption rather then mentioning any
> specific one), I have contacted Saber off-list and asked him to remove
> the link to INPUT on our web site. I did this along with a deep sense
> of shame that we cannot acknowledge the hard work of long term
> contributors to QGIS - in particular Martin has been a contributor to
> QGIS since the very early days of the project.

Yes, it is a pain but it is a complex situation. I wish nothing more
than seeing QField iOS download button on the QGIS download page. As
Saber mentions in a previous mail, there are precedents that show GPL
apps on the AppStore (like Subsurface divelog) unfortunately there are
also precedents that show that GPL without an amendment can lead to an
app (see VLC [0], GNU go[1]) being removed form the app store. And also
the FSF, even-though long ago, took a clear stance against GPLv2 on the
AppStore [1].

>
> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Website/pull/735 
>
> The assessment of the situation below may be right,

we also had the same feedback from a different lawyer and it is why
we've never put iOS as highest priority with QField, there used to be a
way that seemed doable before by using the enterprise developer program
but it looks like Apple made that tighter and added more requirements
that can only be achieved by a company distributing to employees and not
an organization distributing to members.

We had envisioned creating a QField organization to which anyone could
become member and receive QField by accepting the developers
(OPENGIS.ch) certificate. As Saber says, looks like nowadays appstore is
basically the only way to deploy apps that is feasible. We are still
looking into this to see if we missed something.

> but IMHO the situation itself is wrong - we should not be held hostage
> by our own license. Our license choice was intended to ensure that
> QGIS can be a GIS that everyone can use, and we should be actively
> taking it to every platform that is in popular use.
oh yes, you're so right. I know apple is not that beloved in the FOSS
world, but I want to respect the user wish to use it and enable them
with our great tools.
> Thus I would like to raise the proposal that we assemble a list of
> everyone who has made a contribution to the QGIS code base, and at
> very least, run a poll to see how many would be amenable to a
> modification of the license.

I think it is a good point, and for sure the (probably only) clean way
to solve this. In any case if we go that way, VLC has already gone there
so we can have a look at how they did it. [3][4]

> From the poll results we will be able to see 1) are 100% of the
> authors contactable and 2) what % of the codebase currently under GPL
> could not be relicensed. 
>
> Regards
>
> Tim

Ciao

Marco


[0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/
[1] https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
[2]
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/apple-app-store-anniversary-marks-ten-years-of-proprietary-appsploitation
[3] https://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl-modules.html
[4] http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/I-did-it


--
Marco Bernasocchi

QGIS.org Co-chair
http://berna.io

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

pcav
Hi all,

Il 17/03/20 14:29, Marco Bernasocchi ha scritto:

>> but IMHO the situation itself is wrong - we should not be held hostage
>> by our own license. Our license choice was intended to ensure that
>> QGIS can be a GIS that everyone can use, and we should be actively
>> taking it to every platform that is in popular use.
> oh yes, you're so right. I know apple is not that beloved in the FOSS
> world, but I want to respect the user wish to use it and enable them
> with our great tools.
>> Thus I would like to raise the proposal that we assemble a list of
>> everyone who has made a contribution to the QGIS code base, and at
>> very least, run a poll to see how many would be amenable to a
>> modification of the license.
>
> I think it is a good point, and for sure the (probably only) clean way
> to solve this. In any case if we go that way, VLC has already gone there
> so we can have a look at how they did it. [3][4]
>
>> From the poll results we will be able to see 1) are 100% of the
>> authors contactable and 2) what % of the codebase currently under GPL
>> could not be relicensed. 

I agree with Tim, we should allow as many users as possible to use our
sw, as this is the main point about freedom. Of course, this should be
done in a way that does not limit the freedom of others, especially
those who choose to use fully free solutions.
What kind of licence modification are you thinking of? Just moving to
LGPL, like VLC?
Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

Andreas Neumann-3
Hi Paolo,

From what I remember from the discussion yesterday, the idea is to stay with GPL, but add exceptions for distributions in app stores.

Tim correct me if I'm wrong.

Wasn't sure if this means a general exception for all existing and future (to come) app stores, or if we need to specifically mention them, e.g. iOS Apple app store (or however this thing is called). What if the terms of these app stores are totally against our values?

Greetings,
Andreas

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 17:14, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

Il 17/03/20 14:29, Marco Bernasocchi ha scritto:
>> but IMHO the situation itself is wrong - we should not be held hostage
>> by our own license. Our license choice was intended to ensure that
>> QGIS can be a GIS that everyone can use, and we should be actively
>> taking it to every platform that is in popular use.
> oh yes, you're so right. I know apple is not that beloved in the FOSS
> world, but I want to respect the user wish to use it and enable them
> with our great tools.
>> Thus I would like to raise the proposal that we assemble a list of
>> everyone who has made a contribution to the QGIS code base, and at
>> very least, run a poll to see how many would be amenable to a
>> modification of the license.
>
> I think it is a good point, and for sure the (probably only) clean way
> to solve this. In any case if we go that way, VLC has already gone there
> so we can have a look at how they did it. [3][4]
>
>> From the poll results we will be able to see 1) are 100% of the
>> authors contactable and 2) what % of the codebase currently under GPL
>> could not be relicensed. 

I agree with Tim, we should allow as many users as possible to use our
sw, as this is the main point about freedom. Of course, this should be
done in a way that does not limit the freedom of others, especially
those who choose to use fully free solutions.
What kind of licence modification are you thinking of? Just moving to
LGPL, like VLC?
Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


--

--
Andreas Neumann
QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

Even Rouault-2
On mercredi 18 mars 2020 17:25:19 CET Andreas Neumann wrote:

> Hi Paolo,
>
> From what I remember from the discussion yesterday, the idea is to stay
> with GPL, but add exceptions for distributions in app stores.
>
> Tim correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Wasn't sure if this means a general exception for all existing and future
> (to come) app stores, or if we need to specifically mention them, e.g. iOS
> Apple app store (or however this thing is called). What if the terms of
> these app stores are totally against our values?

IHMO, the (pain of the) process of having all contributors accept to adding an
exception to the GPL would be quite similar as completely changing license.
If that's considered, then switching to something non-copyleft like BSD, MIT
or Apache, etc might be more relevant to avoid any future pain. See this post
by Paul Ramsey:
http://blog.cleverelephant.ca/2010/04/on-road-to-damascus-gpl-to-bsd.html (not
necessarily his conclusion but the discussion on the merits of GPL vs other
licenses)

Even

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

pcav
In reply to this post by Andreas Neumann-3
Hi Andreas,
thanks for your reply.

Il 18/03/20 17:25, Andreas Neumann ha scritto:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> From what I remember from the discussion yesterday, the idea is to stay
> with GPL, but add exceptions for distributions in app stores.

OK, so a different route from VLC. Would Qt open source licence allow this?

Cheers.

> Tim correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Wasn't sure if this means a general exception for all existing and
> future (to come) app stores, or if we need to specifically mention them,
> e.g. iOS Apple app store (or however this thing is called). What if the
> terms of these app stores are totally against our values?
>
> Greetings,
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 17:14, Paolo Cavallini <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     Il 17/03/20 14:29, Marco Bernasocchi ha scritto:
>     >> but IMHO the situation itself is wrong - we should not be held
>     hostage
>     >> by our own license. Our license choice was intended to ensure that
>     >> QGIS can be a GIS that everyone can use, and we should be actively
>     >> taking it to every platform that is in popular use.
>     > oh yes, you're so right. I know apple is not that beloved in the FOSS
>     > world, but I want to respect the user wish to use it and enable them
>     > with our great tools.
>     >> Thus I would like to raise the proposal that we assemble a list of
>     >> everyone who has made a contribution to the QGIS code base, and at
>     >> very least, run a poll to see how many would be amenable to a
>     >> modification of the license.
>     >
>     > I think it is a good point, and for sure the (probably only) clean way
>     > to solve this. In any case if we go that way, VLC has already gone
>     there
>     > so we can have a look at how they did it. [3][4]
>     >
>     >> From the poll results we will be able to see 1) are 100% of the
>     >> authors contactable and 2) what % of the codebase currently under GPL
>     >> could not be relicensed. 
>
>     I agree with Tim, we should allow as many users as possible to use our
>     sw, as this is the main point about freedom. Of course, this should be
>     done in a way that does not limit the freedom of others, especially
>     those who choose to use fully free solutions.
>     What kind of licence modification are you thinking of? Just moving to
>     LGPL, like VLC?
>     Cheers.
>     --
>     Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu <http://www.faunalia.eu>
>     QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> Chair:
>     http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
>     _______________________________________________
>     Qgis-psc mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Andreas Neumann
> QGIS.ORG <http://QGIS.ORG> board member (treasurer)

--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

Tim Sutton-6
In reply to this post by Even Rouault-2
Hi



On 18 Mar 2020, at 16:40, Even Rouault <[hidden email]> wrote:

On mercredi 18 mars 2020 17:25:19 CET Andreas Neumann wrote:
Hi Paolo,

From what I remember from the discussion yesterday, the idea is to stay
with GPL, but add exceptions for distributions in app stores.

Tim correct me if I'm wrong.

Wasn't sure if this means a general exception for all existing and future
(to come) app stores, or if we need to specifically mention them, e.g. iOS
Apple app store (or however this thing is called). What if the terms of
these app stores are totally against our values?

IHMO, the (pain of the) process of having all contributors accept to adding an
exception to the GPL would be quite similar as completely changing license.
If that's considered, then switching to something non-copyleft like BSD, MIT
or Apache, etc might be more relevant to avoid any future pain. See this post
by Paul Ramsey:
http://blog.cleverelephant.ca/2010/04/on-road-to-damascus-gpl-to-bsd.html (not
necessarily his conclusion but the discussion on the merits of GPL vs other
licenses)

Yes we floated the idea but the suggestion got drowned in a bunch of knee-jerk reactions without anyone taking time to contemplate it properly. I think for too many people, open source (and in particular their choice of GPL as preferred license) has become a fanatical religion and they lost sight of why we make  open source software - to collaborate freely and spread our work far and wide. Often the arguments get framed in ‘wrongs and rights’ and ‘ethics’ rather than in values and what will serve our needs well. In our prior discussions we floated a range of possibilities (all of which except 0 involve of course getting sign off from every developer or replacing their contributions):

0) Do nothing, live with brain dead stuff like not being able to publish our work in app stores
1) Simple license tweak as proposed in this thread (to confirm your question Andreas).
2) Change of license to e.g. BSD/MIT something else
3) Ceding ownership of all code to QGIS.org (and requiring so for all future contributions) so that licenses changes (after due process in accordance with our governance guidelines) could be made as needed.

Unfortunately what generally happens in these discussions is that a few loud voices kill the discussion (usually supporting some kind of FUD statement like ’The PSC wants to run away with the IP and make random changes to the license’ etc. and nobody wants to get into an argument so important discussions get dropped.

*sigh*

Personally, I would like to aim for 3 above, but probably we will get 0 or (if we do a lot of work tracking down devs) maybe 1. But most of all I would like whatever route we take to be an informed choice supported by an informed and open discussion. Our license must serve our work…not hold us hostage. I think at the very least, we should make an effort to contact all our contributors who still have actively used code in the code base, and a) see if they are still out there and b) poll them on their willingness to introduce changes to our license, whether it be 0 or 4 on the scale above.

Regards

Tim



Even

--
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

 




---

Tim Sutton





_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

pcav
Hi Tim,

Il 22/03/20 17:45, Tim Sutton ha scritto:

> Yes we floated the idea but the suggestion got drowned in a bunch of
> knee-jerk reactions without anyone taking time to contemplate it
> properly. I think for too many people, open source (and in particular
> their choice of GPL as preferred license) has become a fanatical
> religion and they lost sight of why we make  open source software - to
> collaborate freely and spread our work far and wide. Often the arguments
> get framed in ‘wrongs and rights’ and ‘ethics’ rather than in values and
> what will serve our needs well. In our prior discussions we floated a
> range of possibilities (all of which except 0 involve of course getting
> sign off from every developer or replacing their contributions):
>
> 0) Do nothing, live with brain dead stuff like not being able to publish
> our work in app stores
> 1) Simple license tweak as proposed in this thread (to confirm your
> question Andreas).
> 2) Change of license to e.g. BSD/MIT something else
> 3) Ceding ownership of all code to QGIS.org <http://QGIS.org> (and
> requiring so for all future contributions) so that licenses changes
> (after due process in accordance with our governance guidelines) could
> be made as needed.
>
> Unfortunately what generally happens in these discussions is that a few
> loud voices kill the discussion (usually supporting some kind of FUD
> statement like ’The PSC wants to run away with the IP and make random
> changes to the license’ etc. and nobody wants to get into an argument so
> important discussions get dropped.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Personally, I would like to aim for 3 above, but probably we will get 0
> or (if we do a lot of work tracking down devs) maybe 1. But most of all
> I would like whatever route we take to be an informed choice supported
> by an informed and open discussion. Our license must serve our work…not
> hold us hostage. I think at the very least, we should make an effort to
> contact all our contributors who still have actively used code in the
> code base, and a) see if they are still out there and b) poll them on
> their willingness to introduce changes to our license, whether it be 0
> or 4 on the scale above.

I frankly do not understand these tones. GPL licence allowed us to grow
and prosper for 20 years, it is the most widespread licence for
successful FOSS projects, and many people (right or wrong) simply do not
see the need and urgency to change this.
Let's keep on discussing about the relative merits of various options,
with the friendly tone we have always had.
Cheers.
--
Paolo Cavallini - www.faunalia.eu
QGIS.ORG Chair:
http://planet.qgis.org/planet/user/28/tag/qgis%20board/
_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iOS links [was PSC Meeting March]

Tim Sutton-6
In reply to this post by Tim Sutton-6
Hi Vincent

PS : A very good friend of mine was held hostage in Afghanistan. Please never
use these words in other contexts if you do not know what they really mean.

I am so sorry for what happened to your friend. My use of the phrase was in the common English vernacular and was in no way a parody to real life. 

Regards

Tim









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

I'd love to connect. Here's my calendar link to make finding time easy.


_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc