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

Mark Wu markplace at gmail.com
Mon Aug 8 05:10:10 GMT 2005


Don't worry. We won't sue anyone. 

I also discussed with Oscar before about this. I think Oscar has "Oral
Agreement" for us that we can change the license. The problem is this oral
agreement conflict with GPL v2. Unless we change the license to LGPL or
others (maybe dual license), or I don't think we can re-license or
sub-license "legally"...

About donation? I plan to do what Matt said in previous, I will try to bind
donation with download process.... :D

Mmm ... I will release hotprevention follow GPL v2. It is a easy plugin
anyway ... Hee hee, I think I should re-license templateeditor, it is really
a complex plugin :P

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plog-svn-bounces at devel.plogworld.net 
> [mailto:plog-svn-bounces at devel.plogworld.net] On Behalf Of Matt
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 12:36 PM
> To: alex at pooliestudios.com; plog-svn at devel.plogworld.net
> Subject: Re: [pLog-svn] [Discussion] About the 
> sub-license/re-licenseto plogplugins
> 
> 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#LinkingOverControlled
> Interface
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.plogworld.net
> http://devel.plogworld.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn




More information about the pLog-svn mailing list