Hi Marco,
GPL does not require to publish changes / plugins to everyone. E.g. say you
create a plugin for a contractor, if you give them the binary and a source
tarball, it's all fine with GPL, and there is no requirement for you or the
contractor to publish the plugin to the public.
This is
Hi Noli
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Noli Sicad nsi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Marco,
GPL does not require to publish changes / plugins to everyone. E.g. say you
create a plugin for a contractor, if you give them the binary and a source
tarball, it's all fine with GPL, and there is no
Am Donnerstag, 17. November 2011, 09.32:47 schrieb Noli Sicad:
Hi Marco,
GPL does not require to publish changes / plugins to everyone. E.g. say
you create a plugin for a contractor, if you give them the binary and a
source tarball, it's all fine with GPL, and there is no requirement for
The GPL and LGPL only take effect on *distribution*. This means if you
build software for in-house (e.g. to be used only within your
organisation) there is no need to release the source code. So an
organisation can pay a contractor to do work for them and never make
it public.
So, the
Hi Noli,
On Thu, 17. Nov 2011 at 19:32:47 +1100, Noli Sicad wrote:
GPL does not require to publish changes / plugins to everyone. E.g. say you
create a plugin for a contractor, if you give them the binary and a source
tarball, it's all fine with GPL, and there is no requirement for you or
OK. I understand now.
However, if you sell the plugin or give it to the third party, then
this is consider - public release, right?
Thanks for the clarification.
Noli
On 11/17/11, Jürgen E. j...@norbit.de wrote:
Hi Noli,
On Thu, 17. Nov 2011 at 19:32:47 +1100, Noli Sicad wrote:
GPL does
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Noli Sicad nsi...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. I understand now.
However, if you sell the plugin or give it to the third party, then
this is consider - public release, right?
Thanks for the clarification.
Noli
No, it is a release to that third party
Am Donnerstag, 17. November 2011, 10.22:10 schrieb Noli Sicad:
OK. I understand now.
However, if you sell the plugin or give it to the third party, then
this is consider - public release, right?
I'm not 100% sure here, the GNU faq says:
But if you release the modified version to the public
While we are on this subject, I would advice the reading of the only
source that matters :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
About plugin's licensing :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
to sum it up, you release your plugin under any other license
recognized
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:38:07PM +1000, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
Projects like PostGIS and uDig are all under the LGPL
PostGIS is GPL.
--strk;
() Free GIS Flash consultant/developer
/\ http://strk.keybit.net/services.html
___
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:03:56 +0100, Marco Hugentobler wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 17. November 2011, 10.22:10 schrieb Noli Sicad:
OK. I understand now.
However, if you sell the plugin or give it to the third party, then
this is consider - public release, right?
I'm not 100% sure here, the GNU faq
However, if you sell the plugin or give it to the third party, then
this is consider - public release, right?
I'm not 100% sure here, the GNU faq says:
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL
requires you to make the modified source code available to the
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:10:04AM +0100, Sandro Santilli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:38:07PM +1000, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
Projects like PostGIS and uDig are all under the LGPL
PostGIS is GPL.
Since we're at it, I could add that GEOS is LGPL.
The healthiest of the two being
It would be any user getting their hands on this binary. If your client
gives a copy to his friend then his friend has the right to the source (it
doesn't mean that YOU have to the one sending the source).
I understand it *does* mean that you have to be the one sending the
source. If you
Message- From: Alister Hood Sent: Friday, 18
November 2011 11:17 a.m. To: 'qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org' Cc:
'jr.morre...@enoreth.net' Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] QIGS GPL
- LGPL - Tigers, Lions and
Bears Oh My!
The idea of dual licensing is that they would pay up front to use
QGIS
under
On 11/16/2011 09:38 PM, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
I would like, if I may, raise the topic of the current licensing of QGIS. One
thing I have been thinking about lately is if we should change the licence
from GPL to LGPL. I understand the motivation to use GPL at the start, as
Qt was only GPL but
Hi Nathan
Licensing . the least favourite topic for most of us since half
the time we don't understand all the in and outs... see more below
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Nathan Woodrow madman...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like, if I may, raise the topic of the current licensing of QGIS.
On 11/16/2011 10:48 PM, Alex Mandel wrote:
On 11/16/2011 09:38 PM, Nathan Woodrow wrote:
I would like, if I may, raise the topic of the current licensing of QGIS.
One
thing I have been thinking about lately is if we should change the licence
from GPL to LGPL. I understand the motivation to
Hi Nathan
GPL does not require to publish changes / plugins to everyone. E.g. say you
create a plugin for a contractor, if you give them the binary and a source
tarball, it's all fine with GPL, and there is no requirement for you or the
contractor to publish the plugin to the public.
So in my
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Tim Sutton li...@linfiniti.com wrote:
The question you raise has been raised before and we have always said
no. The reason for this is that we want to ensure that the commitment
we have made to provide a Free and open source GIS available to
everyone does not
20 matches
Mail list logo
