Thanks Allesandro, for your willingness to at least LGPL your donated
We have had a discussion fairly recently on this list about when the GPL
would be required, and I was summarizing my recollection of what Rafael
said. But I may have it wrong, and the situation here is more complicated
then the situation we were discussing before. However, *something* is
linked to QT in order to run the pyqt GUI since I must set LD_LIBRARY_PATH
to point to where I have libqt located in order for your example to work.
Thus, I think some minimal amount of stuff will have to be GPLed, but I am
not sure of exactly what. I don't have an axe to grind about GPL versus
LGPL, but I do want to get this right so it does not come back to haunt
What do you think, Rafael? (I suspect you don't have time to comment much
so what is the fundamental principle I should follow here to decide
what needs to be GPLed taking into account that some of the "linking" is
simply a user choice to read in the source from some of the xw??.py demos.)
P.S. Allesandro, in response to your plimage question, I cannot commit to
anything at this time. I would prefer to make sure the GUI base is fine
(all license issues resolved and everybody happy with the configuration
[which is a time-consuming issue, I am willing to work on]) and installed
into CVS before even considering anything else.
phone: 250-727-2902 FAX: 250-721-7715
Dr. Alan W. Irwin
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3055,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8W 3P6
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Alessandro Mirone wrote:
> Hello Alan,
> For me it's fine if you take my patches in plplot under LGPL.
> None of the changes to plmodule.c need libqt and
> Libqt is just needed by pyqt if you want to run the new qplplot
> widget. On the other hand qplplot.py is just a code that
> does not not contain libqt, so I think that you can license it
> in the form that you prefer (LGPL).