QGIS + QGIS plugin (GPL) <-> data <-> Arcpy script (LGPL, MIT, BSD)
Yes it's ok as long as they don't directly import each other. Thanks, Alex On 03/26/2012 03:07 PM, Noli Sicad wrote: > > QGIS + QGIS plugin (GPL) + Arcpy script (LGPL, MIT, BSD) = might be OK. > > Noli > > > On 3/27/12, G. Allegri <[email protected]> wrote: >> Perfect. I find thinking in the terms of process space a clear criterior. >> This makes dynamic and static linking equivalent... >> >> So, going back to SEXTANTE, it can be given an LGPL license but it cannot >> use non-free code when used through Qgis, while it's free to do it when >> used through, e.g., ArcGIS. >> Please, tell me it's right, otherwise I end the day with another doubt! :) >> >> giovanni >> >> 2012/3/26 Vincent Picavet <[email protected]> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> Ok, going through hyopthesis things are getting clear: >>>> my plugin is ok until it doesn't load something proprietary in its >>> process >>>> space. As soon as it happens I must be able to provide the source of >>> every >>>> code running in the same process. Right? >>> Right. >>> Importing esri python module falls into that category. >>> Vincent >>> >>>> >>>> giovanni >>>> >>>> 2012/3/26 Vincent Picavet <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Le lundi 26 mars 2012 21:32:31, G. Allegri a écrit : >>>>>> Ah, Tim, it's getting clear. Thanks. >>>>>> The key point is distribution, as always with GPL. >>>>>> In my case I won't distribute the ESRI geoprocessing libraries, >>> they're >>>>>> part of the ArcGIS distribution, which is only availbale to users >>>>>> having >>>>> >>>>> it >>>>> >>>>>> installed on they're computers. >>>>>> >>>>>> The import satement will success only if the user have the ArcGIS >>>>>> product installed, otherwise it will fail. As a consequence I felt I >>>>>> could >>>>> >>>>> freely >>>>> >>>>>> distribute my plugin as it doesn't strictly require the proprietary >>>>>> side >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>> run. >>>>> >>>>> No you are wrong, as soon as your plugin is distributed and linked >>>>> with >>>>> arcgis, you have to licence everything as GPL and therefore provide >>>>> sources. >>>>> >>>>>> Doesn't GDAL do the same with ECW?! Ok GDAL are LGPL. Is this the >>>>>> key >>>>>> difference? >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>> Moreover it doesn't expose the QGis APIs to ArcGIS, and viceversa, >>>>>> so >>>>>> it only bridges the two world to interchange the data. >>>>> >>>>> Bridging with an import is a link. If you want to exchange data, do it >>>>> without >>>>> the import and separate your modules. >>>>> >>>>> please re-read my post and mentionned the FSF faq. Everything is in >>>>> there. >>>>> >>>>> Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> giovanni >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2012/3/26 Tim Sutton <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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.htm >>>>>>> l >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2012-March/019000.htm >>>>>>> l >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
