On 16.09.21 15:25, Greg Troxel wrote:
I am surprised it is considered ok to have non-free software as part of
a plugin. Usually in Free Software plugins are considered derived works
of the project, so them including code not compatible with GPL2 seems
problematic. I wasn't clear on the project's stance, but it seems to be
exactly this typical norm:
https://blog.qgis.org/2016/05/29/licensing-requirements-for-qgis-plugins/
(I'm just a random user and packager, not speaking with any official
hats.)
The plugin is obviously FOSS & GPL, the routing engines & solvers and so
on are BSD-2 and MIT. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't really see a problem
_potentially_ having the bindings of the BSD-2 & MIT projects closed
with attribution and include those as dependencies of a GPL software
(plugin/QGIS). AFAIU GPL is important for consumer apps/libs, not the
other way around. Happy to be proven wrong though, like I said the
discussion is not settled yet.
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[email protected]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
