On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:20:16AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:44:13AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > Hrm. I hadn't thought of that one. Do you know of a case where > > someone's actually done this? > > Not specifically, no; but it's a real possibility, and especially with > scum like SCO tangling with the GPL now, we could even find this to be > the case retroactively if there hasn't been an explicit grant to > distribute binaries. How can you forget java? :P -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature