[Qgis-developer] Plugin licence

[Greg Troxel]

"Vincent Picavet (ml)" <vincent.ml at oslandia.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> On 25/05/2016 11:42, Tom Chadwin wrote:
>> Vincent Picavet (ml) wrote
>>> I may be wrong, but if qgis2web is like qgis2three, it generates
>>> projects containing OL3 or leaflet code ?
>>> In this case, there is no code link between the Python plugin and
>>> Leaflet nor OL3
>> 
>> Yes, this is how it works. However, the code it generates *does* link to the
>> other libraries in code. I think it would therefore be egregious to say no
>> link exists between the Python code and the third-party JS libraries.
>
> The term "link" is very subtle, and is key to the issue here. There is
> absolutely no "link" in the sense of the GPL between your Python module
> and the code you generate. The generated code can be considered as data
> for your plugin ( template, replacement values).

Programmers focus on link, but it's really not the point.  The question
in copyright law is "derived work" or "a work based on the program".  So
the typical view among hard-core licensing nerds is that the source of a
plugin -- because it is fundamentally an extension to the main program
-- is a derived work.  Thus one needs permission from the original
copyright holders to distribute it.  The GPL only grants such permission
if the plugin is licensed under the GPL.

As to being derived works of multiple things at once, yes, that may well
be true.  One needs permission from all.  That doesn't mean matching
license.  It means that given the plugin license, the copyright holders
of all underlying programs must be willing to grant permission.  For BSD
licenses, there is no issue (other than preserving the notice, more or
less).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20160525/a9b0dadb/attachment.sig>