Matthew Palmer wrote:
> That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should > reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the > latter has a documented API and the former only communicates with > it through that API, I'd probably say no. Even more so if that > plugin could conceivably work with another, non-GPL'd plugin > loader.
It's a tricky issue. Even if the plugin does only communicate via the published interface, it is entirely possible that the plugin includes copyrighted elements from the plugin loader code itself. It'd have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Basically, ".h" bits are *not* copyrightable. Which other elements of the plugin loader may be _included_ in the plugin?
- Matt
Massa
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
