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

[Oscar Renalias]

Licensin, uhmmm, this is a touchy issue :)

I read all those links you provided and it is still unclear to me.
It's true that all the plugins have to call some GPLed code from plog
(to set up menu entries, to register actions, etc) but that's nothing
compared to all the work that goes into creating the plugin. My
reasoning is that the person(s) doing the work, should be able to
freely choose how to license/sell/provide their plugin.

Oscar

On 8/8/05, Mark Wu <markplace at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex & Matt:
> 
> See this post
> http://blog.carthik.net/vault/2004/07/07/cafepress-integration-the-price/  ,
> especially danyl's comments...
> 
> Very interesting article.
> 
> Mark
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: plog-svn-bounces at devel.plogworld.net
> > [mailto:plog-svn-bounces at devel.plogworld.net] On Behalf Of
> > Alexander Kaiser
> > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:15 PM
> > To: plog-svn at devel.plogworld.net
> > Subject: Re: [pLog-svn] [Discussion] About the
> > sub-license/re-license to plogplugins
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>