[Qgis-psc] Fwd: [Qgis-developer] AequilibraE

[Neumann, Andreas]

Hi, 

I would agree with Tims reasoning. 

3) would be nice - but that proposed image is really grouse: -1 to use
this ugly image ;-) 

But a highly visible warning of a plugin that contains binary code would
be very useful IMHO. 

Greetings, 

Andreas 

On 2016-12-22 11:03, Tim Sutton wrote:

> Hi 
> 
> I think this is easily resolved:  
> 
> 1) Add a guideline on the plugin page that we **prefer**  plugins to be shipped without binary blobs, but if they are required they should still adhere to our licensing requirements and other criteria as referenced by Matthias below. 
> 2) Evaluate plugins with binary blobs on a case by case basis and simply accept them if they author appears bona fide. 
> 
> I would have also liked to have the following: 
> 
> 3) Have a tag in the metadata that indicates that the plugin contains binary blobs so that the user can make up their own mind as to whether they wish to install blobs or not. But this is not a blocker for me. For double points use an icon like this https://goo.gl/images/NYt3uE so you can see at a glance which plugins are blobbified. 
> 
> I think guidelines and rules are great, but that we also should not become so caught up in our rules that we lose sight of common sense - people spend a lot of time and effort building their plugins and it is a shame to turn them away if they had to blobbify their plugins for good technical reasons... 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> On 22 Dec 2016, at 11:36 AM, Matthias Kuhn <matthias at opengis.ch> wrote: 
> 
> Hi Anita,
> 
> On 12/21/2016 09:16 AM, Anita Graser wrote:
> 
> http://anitagraser.com
> 
> On Dec 21, 2016 7:07 AM, "Paolo Cavallini" <cavallini at faunalia.it
> <mailto:cavallini at faunalia.it>> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> should we take a decision on this?
> 
> Could you summarize the issue. I haven't been reading along all the time. 
> The question is, if it should be possible to deploy binaries (normally
> additional libraries) through our plugin servers as part of a plugin.
> Everyone agrees that if it should be allowed, only under the condition
> that the source code is present as well and properly licensed.
> 
> Contra:
> 
> - We cannot verify if binary matches source
> - Hosting binaries feels wrong
> 
> Pro:
> 
> - Plugin dev's life is easier (because sometimes using libs cannot be
> avoided)
> - We have a higher chance of keeping track of the plugins and closer
> contact to the developers
> - Less risk of having multiple plugin repositories out there
> - There is no additional protection for the user by not allowing this
> 
> Possible solutions are listed here:
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2016-December/046247.html
> 
> Best wishes
> Matthias
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

--- 

TIM SUTTON 
QGIS Project Steering Committee Chair 
tim at qgis.org 

_______________________________________________
Qgis-psc mailing list
Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc 

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20161222/3d6e43b4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: qgis_icon.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20161222/3d6e43b4/attachment.jpg>