[Qgis-developer] Directions needed for GSOC Proposal

[Alex Mandel]

SEXTANTE just needs to be a GPL compatible license, it does not need to
be GPL itself, though the copy distributed with QGIS will be treated as
GPL. (In effect it ends up being like a dual license).

See the diagram on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

I would recommend LGPL otherwise people writing the SEXTANTE plugin for
Arc might run into trouble. This would provide flexibility in what
applications can use the library (much the way gdal/ogr shows up
everywhere).

This is quite different than the other issue being discussed which is
the import of Arc into a QGIS plugin. To be clear yes people can do such
things, and could import proprietary applications into their plugins,
they just can't legally distribute it outside their company.

Thanks,
Alex

On 03/26/2012 05:26 AM, G. Allegri wrote:
> I would keep it LGPL. I'm not interested in wrapping it in proprietary
> code, but to use proprietary code through SEXTANTE...
> 
> giovanni
> 
> 2012/3/26 Peter Borissow <peter.borissow at yahoo.com>
> 
>> Do you need to GPL all of SETANTE or just the glueware (e.g. QGIS plugin)?
>> In otherwords, is there a way to keep the SEXTANTE core MIT or LGPL?
>>
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>> *From:* Victor Olaya <volayaf at gmail.com>
>> *To:* cavallini at faunalia.it
>> *Cc:* qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 26, 2012 6:10 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Qgis-developer] Directions needed for GSOC Proposal
>>
>> Then, I guess there is no discussion. As I said, in this case there is
>> no difference from my point of view, so GPL is a good option for
>> SEXTANTE
>>
>> Regards
>>