Le mercredi 25 mai 2016 13:26:02, Vincent Picavet (ml) a écrit : > Hi, > > On 25/05/2016 12:39, Even Rouault wrote: > [..] > > > <my ow opinion, not pretending this is the project one> > > > > Technically you could licence the plugin with any license you want, but > > as soon you execute it against QGIS, it must be compatible of GPL v2+, > > since it is a derived work of QGIS GPLv2 code, and thus it must convey > > the same rights and obligations offered and constrained by the GPLv2 > > license. > > So you could also licence it under X/MIT, BSD 2/3 clauses or which ever > > other free licences that are compatible with GPLv2+. > > It cannot be under a proprietary license, because GPLv2 would impose to > > have access to the source code. > > > > The only cases where it makes sense in practice to have a plugin under a > > permissive license are : > > - imagine that someone would reimplement a QGIS alternative that would > > have the same API as QGIS but would be more permissively licensed, then > > it could make sense to have your plugin under that permissive license. > > - a more reasonable use case would be a plugin that would be compatible > > of QGIS and another proprietary GIS through some abstraction layer of > > their different APIs. The core of your plugin could then be permissively > > licensed to be compatible of both licensing models. > > > > </my ow opinion, not pretending this is the project one> > > I do agree with this analysis. > > Note that as for the Nvidia case mentionned, the Linux kernel has an > exception to GPL for proprietary modules. Not sure it plays a role on > the issue you mentionned, but it may be a strong difference with other > software which do not have this exception.
Are you really sure of that ? If that was the case there would not be all those debates regarding whether proprietary kernel modules are allowed or not. My understanding of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules is that all the subtelty resides in whether a module is a derived work of another one. There's no special explicit exception. The folks that put proprietary modules say they are not derived works from the kernel, hence not bound to GPL. -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer