On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) writes: > > Then read the section "Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free > > program?" in the GPL FAQ: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF > > If there are any other interpretations of that section, please > > enlighten me. > When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a GPL-incompatible work, > we have two choices: > - Assume the author of the plugin was confused, and that the plugin > isn't even distributable, or > - Assume that the author intends that the plugin have an implicit > exception for the gpl-incompatible work. - Assume that the author knows what he's doing after all, and only intends for the plugin to be distributable in source format until a GPL-compatible framework comes along. > We generally go with the latter, simply because it makes more sense. We'd better not, without a clarifying statement from the copyright holder; see above. > But that does have implications, namely that the plugin isn't actually > under the GPL, but under a sort of GPL+exception hybrid license. Which, > in turn, means that it's not really GPL compatible -- GPL code from > other sources and other authors can not be used with this "GPL" plugin. GPL+exceptions is still GPL-compatible, regardless of whether the thing being given an exception is GPL-compatible. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature