On mån, 2007-09-24 at 09:49 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > The implications range from the "Module is a part of the GPL program > and, hence, must be GPLed!" FSF point of view to "there are no > implications except wasting time on discussing FSF FUD!" point of view.
My personal view on that is that a isolated, strict and well defined module API is an application boundary, pretty much like any other ICP like mechanism. But requires a isolated, strict and well defined API specified under an open non-copyleft license (i.e. modifed BSD or similar). An module API requiring knowledge of the GPL licensed internals is not. That's all I have to say in that matter now as the discussion is quite pointless without at least one target module application. Regards Henrik
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
