Inviato da iPhone

> Il giorno 16 ott 2016, alle ore 19:45, G. Allegri <> ha 
> scritto:
> QGIS plugins must me lisenced as GPL, because the depend on QGIS and GPL is 
> viral.
> Anyway distributing only .pyc is not advisible, because they assume the same 
> interpreter and the same execution environment that compiled the .pyc 
> bytecode.
Daccordo è "sconsigliato", e so che funziona.  Ma, mi chiedo, non si sta 
tentando di aggirare la licenza ?
Cioè, mettiamo che non sia possibile ottenere i sorgenti in chiaro, per qualche 
ragione (oscurati, per esempio). 
Il fatto di non poter leggere i sorgenti in chiaro, come ci assicura che non 
contengano codice malevolo ?
Non sarebbe meglio vietare questa pratica ?

Che dici ?

Agree is "advisable", and I know it works. But, I ask, you are not trying to 
circumvent the license?
That is, let's say you can not get the clear springs, for some reason 
(obscured, for example).
The fact that they can not read in light sources, assures us that do not 
contain malicious code?
Would not it be better to prohibit this practice?

What do you say ?

Thank you


> giovanni
> Il 16 ott 2016 18:12, "Geo DrinX" <> ha scritto:
>> Well.  You convinced me.  
>> I have a question. It is possible to deploy a QGIS plugin providing only 
>> compiled files through an external repository, which is added to the 
>> repository list? It is absolutely not my case, but I know that someone is 
>> doing it.
>> It is normal or license is violated ?
>> Thank you for any info about this.
>> Roberto
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-developer mailing list
>> List info:
>> Unsubscribe:
Qgis-developer mailing list
List info:

Reply via email to