On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:44:13AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpnBAJ4gF1Dv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
