[Qgis-developer] QIGS GPL -> LGPL - Tigers, Lions and Bears Oh My!

[Marco Hugentobler]

Am Donnerstag, 17. November 2011, 09.32:47 schrieb Noli Sicad:
> Hi Marco,
> 
> > GPL does not require to publish changes / plugins to everyone. E.g. say
> > you create a plugin for a contractor, if you give them the binary and a
> > source tarball, it's all fine with GPL, and there is no requirement for
> > you or the contractor to publish the plugin to the public.
> 
> This is interesting take about GPL and QGIS plugins.
> 
> It means that the QGIS plugins is LGPL in this case.

No, they are GPL. If someone makes a plugin for the plugin, it still needs to 
be GPL.
The main difference between GPL and LGPL is that with GPL the license 
propagates to derived work. If the QGIS plugins were LGPL (which they are 
not), someone could write a plugin for the plugin under proprietary license.

> If It is GPL, we the public can demand that QGIS plugin should be
> available publicly both the source and binary.

Do you have a link to a GNU page or a reference to a part in the GPL license 
itself proving this interpretation?

My interpretation comes from here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

Regards,
Marco

> Is the QGIS plugins, LGPL?
> 
> What do other thinks about Marco's interpretation about GPL and the
> QGIS plugins, not available for everyone - i.e. " there is no
> requirement for you or the  contractor to publish the plugin to the
> public".
> 
> Noli


-- 
Dr. Marco Hugentobler
Sourcepole -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
Churerstrasse 22, CH-8808 Pfäffikon SZ, Switzerland
marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch http://www.sourcepole.ch
Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee