[Qgis-developer] Directions needed for GSOC Proposal
giohappy at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 16:00:54 EDT 2012
2012/3/26 Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>
> More specifically here's the compatibility list:
> "MIT" -Expat or X11, most BSD, Apache 2, LGPL are all on the ok list.
> ^^^ This does not apply to plugins of QGIS which as a technical
> necessity must import QGIS. It does apply to libraries that QGIS wishes
> to include and import into QGIS.
Exactly, indeed my plugin will be GPL, and will be distributed as it is.
How could someone argue that it's illegal? I don't ditribute non-GPL code
> On 03/26/2012 12:40 PM, Alex Mandel wrote:
> > 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
> >>> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qgis-developer mailing list
> > Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Qgis-developer