I premit that I've already chosen a solution to bypass these issues: one, common library and two plugins, one for qgis and one for arcpy. The plugins will interact through pickling, sharing a common data structure from the common library. This is the easiest solution for me to deploy (no servers as with iPython or RabbitMQ).
So, at the end, QGis + GPL + proprietary = illegal. But what about QGis + GPL + LGPL + proprietary? It's not a perversion, it's something that we already have: fTool + GDAL python bindings + ECW giovanni 2012/3/27 Alister Hood <[email protected]> > > Message: 4 > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:33:54 +0200 > > From: Tim Sutton <[email protected]> > > > > > I personnaly consider that libraries should not be under a GPL licence > > but a > > > LGPL one, which keeps the opensource aspect while facilitating mixing > > with > > > other softwares. GPL is fine with end user software built on top of > LGPL > > libs. > > > That said, it would require to relicence all qgis source code as LGPL > > with all > > > contributors agreeing to the change. > > > > I don't think this will happen soon both for logistical reasons and > > philosophical - many of us who have contributed code to the project > > would object to the license switch. > > Since QGIS includes a server application now, perhaps you should consider > relicensing under the *more* restrictive AGPL ;) > > Does anyone know about distributing *only source code* as *public domain* > for a plugin which links with proprietary software? > I think it would not be allowed, but I'm not sure. > > Alister > _______________________________________________ > 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
