-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Folks, > > I'm writing to request a change to the licensing of plugin modules in order > to permit the release of plugins for proprietary protocols. I'm proposing > that we change the licensing of the plugin API as per: > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface > > This change will allow plugins for proprietary protocols to be released > without being affected by GPL. The problem with GPL - according to > conservative interpretations - is that it nullifies any patent on the > proprietary protocol if the decoder is based on GPL. So, companies that are > interested in releasing decoders for proprietary protocols, will not do so > to avoid the legal ramifications of GPL licensing. I don't have any of the code in question, and don't feel strongly one way or the other. However some issues that are worth further discussion: 1. This is a change to the existing license, and potentially needs to be approved by all copyright holders. What happens if someone says no? 2. Whether alternatives (such as the patent holders granting a restricted patent license for use of techniques potentially covered by patent) are compatible with the current license. 3. Whether the plug-in API is sufficiently well defined (in a documentation sense, and also in a code stability sense) that this technique is practicable.
Brad - -- http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE93IuNW6pHgIdAuOMRAurhAKCPZGtVSoThG9LPEhu+ZMM6ep+19QCdFEtE UHnoqZJ7tXLqAfFtEuYKt0A= =S9Ek -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
