[pLog-svn] [Discussion] About the sub-license/re-license to plogplugins

[Alexander Kaiser]

hmm. as for other open source projects i work on with, like
osCommerce, i know that the contributions (plugins) must be released
under the gpl because they get integrated in the system, doesn't
matter if a user does that or it gets automatically added by the
system.

what you are allowed to do is like get money or donations for the
service of downloading or distributing it on a cd.
example: you add the script to your site as download, but to get
access to that, a user has to pay a fee. still, the plugin will stay
under the gnu license and if someone downloads it, he can do whatever
he wants.

i'm not sure if there are other ways, i just know how it works on
other opensource projects.

2005/8/4, Matt <matt at woodzy.com>:
> Mark Wu wrote:
> > I suppose I can re-license  or sub-license my plugins in beginning. But
> > after read this
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins , I just
> > confused. That's why I ask.
> >
> > Accodring to the FAQ, I can not re-license/sub-license my plugin, if my
> > plugin can not "execute" alone .... Weird. It is really different as my
> > original understanding.
> 
> >From FSF...
> <copy>
> If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between
> them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some
> options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
> </copy>
> 
> These questions/answers were defined for C style programs. In essence
> our plugins can act as totally separate entities (ie the gallery2
> plugin) and all pLog does is load the classes.
> 
> pLog invokes the constructor and maybe soon the ::install() function...
> but thats it... everything else is added by the user.
> 
> My understanding is such that because these plugins are added manually
> by the user (or at least non-official ones are) and the user modified
> templates etc to use the plugins. There is no reason why the plugins
> could not be under a different license.
> 
> For example the mysql-php debacle. php uses the MySQL api, php is under
> the PHP License which is a derivative of the GPL while MySQL API is
> under mysql's liscense.
> 
> We are just pLog under GPL, plugin under anything... as long as the
> client adds the plugins dynamically by hisself/herself.
> 
> This is just my interpretation... I'm no lawyer ;)
> 
> --
> Matt (matt\ at\ woodzy.com)       Public Key: woodzy.com/woodzy.gpg.asc
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.plogworld.net
> http://devel.plogworld.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>