Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Michael V. B. <mlv...@th...>]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 10:37:06AM +0100, Alex McLintock wrote:
> Can we confirm that slash plugins are not treated as modifying part of slashcode
> and as such is NOT caught by the GPL virus?
> 
> I'd like to be clear about this when discussing possibly slash sites with paying customers.

Merely distributing `identifiable sections of [slashcode which] are not
derived from [slashcode] ...  as part of a whole which is a work based on
[slashcode], the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of [the
GPL], whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole,
and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it'.

However, if you create a patch under some license, then your client will
be in the position of having modified GPL software which cannot be
distributed since the client was not licensed to distribute the code in
your patch.  (Unlike the MPL and several other licenses, the GPL does
not force you to distribute your personal-use modifications, just ones
that you send to third parties merged with GPLed code.)

The GPL 3 has a goal of `patching' the web service hole, so that might
change things.  Since Slash.pm doesn't specify which version of the GPL
under which it is distributed, any version can be applied.  If the GPL
version N says that it extends to all patches, modules, plugins and so
forth, then you have a problem.

I support the MIT license (`only removing copyright notices and suing is
is forbidden').

-- 
# -- Michael Van Biesbrouck,      mlv...@th...
:b^Js/\(.*\)\(,.*\):\1\(.\)\([a-z]*\)\(.\)r\(:.*\)>\3/\4\2:\1\3\4\5r\6\5>/
s/\(.*\)\(,.*\):\1\(.\)\([a-z]*\)\(.\)l\(:.*\)\(.\)>\3/\4\2:\1\3\4\5l\6>\7\5/
s/>$/>0/^J/^halt/!bb