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

[Alexander Kaiser]

so these articles posted by marc say pretty much that if the team core
says's it's ok, then it's ok?! that's interesting.

alex

2005/8/8, Mark Wu <markplace at gmail.com>:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.plogworld.net
> http://devel.plogworld.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>