On 27 Feb., 23:00, Bruno Postle <br...@postle.net> wrote: > >What I mean is this: hsi, the python module that is generated by SWIG > >and contains the hugin functionality, can be imported by any python > >script that cares to do so. It's like loading a shared library from an > >executable program, in fact, technically, this is just what happens. > >But the code that finds it way into the script via this route is > >GPLed. Therefore, if I understand things rightly, the module would > >have to make itself known as GPL software, prohibit closed-source > >users to import it and point a way to it's sources, plus whatever > >other requirements the GPL imposes. > > We would want people to write their own scripts and not care about > this stuff so long as they didn't distribute them.
I don't quite follow your train of thought here. What do you mean by "so long as they didn't distribute them"? Certainly there would be no problem distributing the scripts and plugins themselves, since they only import (use) hsi, but don't contain it. The hsi module would only be available legally when packaged with hugin binaries (if we decide to distribute it with hugin) or self-compiled, or from third parties who honour the GPL. There can't be any problem publishing scripts that merely use GPLed software. > Hugin is GPL, and changing this (other than to version 3) isn't ever > going to be practical given the number of contributors. I don't > think having the plugin interface code as LGPL would make any > difference to anyone writing plugins. I take your point. This means that the only channel to obtain the hsi module will be from sources that acknowledge and honour the GPL licensing of the module - like if it were distributed along with hugin. I think that's probably fair enough and shouldn't be too much of an obstacle to aspiring hsi users. The module itself doesn't do any i/o though and can't communicate it's license status. Is that okay with the GPL? Does there have to be some mechanism to display the license or is it enough to have a LICENSE file with the distribution? > > ...Harry said to go ahead, > >though, never mind the Mac problems. So I hope that maybe we'll soon > >have hpi in 'bleeding edge' mainstream and that it can maybe be part > >of the next release. > > Now that 2011.0.0 has branched, this can happen. Excellent. You may have seen my second posting where I described my experience with merging the branch back. It seems painless, but I only tested it on Linux, so there may be obstacles I'm not aware of. Would it be useful if I did the merge again at some convenient point in time and uploaded the patch? After all, I've done it once and I know the interfece best. Kay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
