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

[Jon Daley]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Oscar Renalias wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> No, I don't think we have anything that can be called "official" and
> that is publicly available, but that's easy to fix :-)
>
> Do I see any volunteers to write a short post at lifetype.net
> summarizing our thoughts on the matter, as well as possibly something
> in the "Development" section of the site (perhaps we could create a
> new subsection in there called "Licensing")? :-) I would appreciate
> that.

 	I thought about this some, and I am not sure how to word it.  I 
guess I have become more convinced that the GPL FAQ is saying that the 
plugins *would* have to be GPLed.  It seems that as the copyright owners 
(who exactly are the copyright owners, by the way) it is strange to put up 
contradictory statements with the GPL FAQ.  I am beginning to think that 
Wordpress, Joomla are correct in their interpretation of the GPL.  Perhaps 
we need to write an explicit exception clause for plugins and templates 
in the license, rather than just an "official thoughts" on the web page?

 	I wrote that paragraph an hour ago, and now that I have thought on 
it some more - perhaps it isn't that hard.

 	We can just say something like, "We don't consider plugins or 
templates (e.g. that code that lives in the plugins or templates directory 
of a LifeType installation) that is created by a 3rd party to be a 
derivative work of the LifeType software.  We highly encourage you to 
release your plugins and templates under the GPL, but you are free to use 
other licenses as well".