2012/3/26 Alex Mandel <tech_...@wildintellect.com> > More specifically here's the compatibility list: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > "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 with it... giovanni > > Enjoy, > Alex > > 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.boris...@yahoo.com> > >> > >>> Do you need to GPL all of SETANTE or just the glueware (e.g. QGIS > plugin)? > >>> In otherwords, is there a way to keep the SEXTANTE core MIT or LGPL? > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> *From:* Victor Olaya <vola...@gmail.com> > >>> *To:* cavall...@faunalia.it > >>> *Cc:* qgis-developer@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@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer