[pLog-svn] [gnu.org #343991] Re: templates/plugins have to be GPL without an "exemption"? (fwd)

[Jon Daley]

 	That's funny.  I was a pretty good student, but the only grammar 
correction I constantly received, and took years to figure out how to say 
it correctly, was to stop using the passive voice...  :)
 	I sent an email to the softwarefreedom place, and I got a response 
asking me to say that I understood they were not my attorney, and these 
emails would not be protected under the normal client-attorney privacy 
laws.  So, I responded to that, but I haven't heard anything more yet.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Oscar Renalias wrote:

> Thanks Jon, great work.
>
> Do you think that we need to get some legal advice from the Software
> Freedom Law Center or does our attempt at providing this exemption
> clause sound good enough?
>
> "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"
>
> The only thing I would change is that I'd use the passive voice to
> remove all those "we" and replace them with "plugins and templates are
> not considered", "developers are encouraged", and so on. What do the
> native English speakers think? :)
>
> On 9/25/07, Jon Daley <plogworld at jon.limedaley.com> wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:25:51 -0400
>> From: Brett Smith via RT <licensing at fsf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnu.org #343991] Re: [pLog-svn] templates/plugins have to be GPL
>>      without an "exemption"? (fwd)
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 08:32:33AM -0400, Jon Daley via RT wrote:
>>>       So, the question is, can we use GPL2, but include a clause like
>>> the one quoted below, or do we need a different license altogether to
>>> allow people to write plugins and templates that are not GPLed?
>>>
>>>       If we can use a clause (we would prefer to stay GPLed), do you
>>> know of a clause that is already written, rather than trying to write our
>>> own, and likely missing something?
>>
>> Jon,
>>
>> You're free to grant exceptions to the GPL to allow combinations with
>> proprietary software, yes.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid we don't have any
>> text that's readily suitable for your situation.  The Software Freedom Law
>> Center sometimes provides help in cases like this; you can learn more about
>> them at <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/>.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --
>> Brett Smith
>> Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
>>
>> Please note that I am not an attorney.  This is not legal advice.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pLog-svn mailing list
>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>>
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>

-- 
Jon Daley
http://jon.limedaley.com/

The most important part of music is not in the notes.
-- John Cage