[pLog-svn] templates/plugins have to be GPL without an "exemption"?

[Jon Daley]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Matt Wood wrote:
> I was more reacting to the guy just removing the link from the template. Not
> that templates need to be <parent license> or not.
>
> My basic argument is: just because the author of a template failed to comply
> with the GPL, that does not give any rights to other people to disregard the
> license said template is distributed with GPL instead. All you can do is
> report the licensing infringement, sue the author or ask him nicely. You as
> a user are not entitled to just change the license.
 	Right.  I agree with that.  Though as project managers, if we 
thought there was a violation, we probably shouldn't distribute the thing.

> I can't help but think about the nVidia driver in linux though... how are
> plugin's developed for lifetype different than nvidia's closed source driver
> developed for linux using the exposed APIs?
 	Right.  I had always thought the GPL meant as long as there was a 
clean API line between what I wrote and what the GPL code had, it was okay 
for my thing to not be under GPL.  It seems like the links you referred to 
earlier was less obvious than what I had previously thought.

> http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/a-gpl-license-question/
 	Comment #4 sounds good.

> http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184557
> http://cmsreport.com/node/1091
 	Ok, now I have wasted too much time on this...  As Mark has said, 
I think it is easier for us.  However, do we have some "official" written 
in some obvious place regarding the official stance?  Maybe it should even 
be included in the source code, rather than just on the wiki?