[Qgis-psc] outstanding issues

[Vincent Picavet (ml)]

Hello,


On 20/11/2015 09:53, Tim Sutton wrote:
[...]
> SP have indicated that they do not have time to back port it now to QGIS
> upstream and when I asked if they will back port if we can fund it they
> indicated they consider it as a ‘value add’ to their customers (Marco /
> Pirmin please correct my statements if I misinterpreted your message)
> which they are not yet ready to pass on upstream. Obviously that is not
> ideal but we cannot force them to contribute their changes back hence my
> suggestion for 2). 

I do not really see how this position can be sustainable on the long run.
Especially with QGIS being GPLv2, the ftools C++ port is GPL-licenced too.
Which means that anyone being in possession of QGIS Enterprise would be
allowed to claim the source code, and distribute it on GitHub for QGIS
master integration.

While I can understand the need for added value and lack of resource for
porting this development, I do not get the strategic positioning behind
this decision.

> Reimplementing it may not be the most ideal outcome
> financially or in terms of time wastage, but just in terms of the
> technical platform, having both C++ and python bindings to them seems
> like the nicest state we can have the code in.

+1

Vincent


> 
> Regards
> 
> Tim
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Duivenvoorde
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Sutton
> QGIS Project Steering Committee Member
> tim at qgis.org <mailto:tim at qgis.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>