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

[Matt]

Alexander Kaiser wrote:
> 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.

I did some research...

http://www.alexking.org/blog/2004/07/09/gpl-clarification-continued/
http://elver.cellosoft.com/2005/06/19/misuse-of-gpl/

an interesting aside here about interpreted languages...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
and this...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
and a gpl extension specifically allowing plugins to be licensed
otherwise...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

and discussing all of the above...
http://forum.textpattern.com/viewtopic.php?pid=22504

It seems from reading many sources online and the above article, as long
as "the pLog Team" says that plugins/extensions may have different
licenses then you are then allowed to do so. Which follows from what I
understood in more succinct wording.

But also on the contrary, because most plugins use the AdminAction or
BlogAction classes they are using pLog core code and thus must be GPL'ed
unless excused by the copyright holder(s).

I spoke with Oscar before I released the plugins I wrote to verify he at
least did not mind that I would be releasing plugins not under the GPL
license. I'd that was as good as an agreement ;)... But of course an
email would not hold up in court as well as a entry/page on the website
about licensing of plugins/extensions. This assuming "the pLog team" is
going to sue you which isn't likely, but certainly worth the concern
since recent growth of pLog has increased.

All in all its a gray area until the copyright holders choose, so to say...

-- 
Matt (matt\ at\ woodzy.com)       Public Key: woodzy.com/woodzy.gpg.asc