Hi On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, G. Allegri <[email protected]> wrote: > Through the various considerations on this topic there are two positions the > seems contradictory to me: > > "I did some research on this, and the conclusion is that import is > functionally and legally equivalent to linking during compilation, so > everything that imports qgis must be GPL." [1] >
So if you plan to distribute although technically possible to link to a proprietary module, its not legall possible. > then > > "you can import/link proprietary code into gpl code, provided you have a > license to do it." > So if you have the license to ESRI etc. to use their libraries you are welcome to make yourself a QGIS frontend to ArcSomething, but you cant legally distribute that. > They probably mean different things and they're not in contradiction. Being > an important point to me, could you help in understanding it? > Above is my understanding of those points anyway.... Regards Tim > thanks a lot, > Giovanni > > > [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2012-March/018976.html > [2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2012-March/019000.html > > 2012/3/26 G. Allegri <[email protected]> > >> I think you're right but watch the reality from a worldwide point of view. >> I work mostly with foreign countries, not EU/USA. National offices and >> agencies budgets are far beyond the license fees, so they don't care for it >> very much. They pay yearly for something that already do the work they need, >> without having to do contracts for development, define requirements, etc. >> This is the reality. In my courses, even those based on ESRI software, I >> always introduce FOSS solutions. Sometimes it raises interest, most of times >> they don't care. They want the job done, and they don't pay for the license. >> That's it. >> >> Anyway, if I wouldn't think that (most) of times a free solution could be >> the best way, I wouldn't be here to talk about it ;) >> >> giovanni >> >> >> >> 2012/3/26 Sandro Santilli <[email protected]> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:31:53PM +0200, G. Allegri wrote: >>> >>> > I totally agree with you, but reality is a bit different. Many >>> > agencies, >>> > corporates, etc. are not considering to leave they're infrastructure. >>> >>> It's their choice, they'll have to bear the consequences of that. >>> >>> > I suggest solutions to interoperate, not to switch the whole thing. >>> >>> What I'm saying is that it just costs more. And rightly so. >>> It is no interest of the free software users to make it any cheaper, >>> IMHO. >>> >>> > It would be easier, and a lot cheeper, if everybody talked one >>> > language. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> > But we have hundreads of languages in the world, and we have to deal >>> > with >>> > this. >>> >>> People grow up learning the language of their mothers. >>> Nobody has to pay a license to _use_ that language. >>> And anyone can learn. >>> We're really not talking about the same thing. >>> >>> --strk; >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > -- Tim Sutton - QGIS Project Steering Committee Member (Release Manager) ============================================== Please do not email me off-list with technical support questions. Using the lists will gain more exposure for your issues and the knowledge surrounding your issue will be shared with all. Visit http://linfiniti.com to find out about: * QGIS programming and support services * Mapserver and PostGIS based hosting plans * FOSS Consulting Services Skype: timlinux Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net ============================================== _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
