|
From: Markus A. <mar...@ub...> - 2001-08-24 06:27:44
|
br...@ta... wrote: > Micah Yoder 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? > > This is my understanding. I *could* be mistaken but I'm fairly sure = it's > > accurate. > My take is that your plugin is yours. Did you copy code out of > another piece? If not, it is yours. It is useless without Slash > but it is yours. It all comes down to the question if a plugin is "linked in" or just using some clear interface to communicate with Slash. I guess you could argue for both sides... > Can you sell it? Go for it. Only if it's not "linked in" - but he doesn't have to "sell it" but could "create it" for this specific customer which then owns the rights on the plugin. Unless the customer distributes it (which I don't think he'll do since he wants to run it on his own server) there's no need to know whether the plugin falls under the GPL or not. > > BUT it does NOT say you HAVE to distribute derivative works at all. > > As far as plugins go, they DO use other parts of the Slash system, so= I > > believe they would be "infected" (for lack of a better term), just as= C code > > linked with a GPL (not LGPL) library would be infected. > Right, but we don't link and we certainly are not doing binaries. But plugins _do_ use Slash (the module), right? IMHO this is like using a C library... so why don't you put Slash.pm under the LGPL? > For instance, Plastic.com has changes in it that we have never > seen. Big deal. Someone brings this up from time to time. I don't > care. If they can eek out a living on them, power to them. They're not distributing their changes, so it's obviously pretty ok what they're doing. Big Q: why doesn't Slash use the Perl Artistic Licence? Markus. --=20 http://www.symlink.ch/ Wissen Vernetzt - deutsche News f=FCr die Welt -- Zitat des Tages: Zitat not found, C to Cancel, C to Continue. |