The FSF's theory of GPL inheritance is based on the idea that your code has only one purpose: to extend the capabilities of GPL'ed code. It has no other use or function. So, to distribute it under any other license is an attempt to create a collective work that violates the GPL. This case is trivially destroyed by creating unit test code which isn't GPL'ed.
On Nov 8, 2011 1:08 PM, "David Gerard" &l > > On 8 November 2011 18:02, Olivier Beaton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If it's on company time it's All Rights Reserved and will never see > > the light of day. Way too many lawyers over here. Anyways it looks for > > my perticular case I'll probably end up with just a BSD header (was > > most likely overthinking/overparanoid), but as I keep repeating, and > > which Rob pointed out, it would be a good thing to a have a documented > > guideline (based on consensus) about what can be accepted into the > > repo. Key questions like is-gpl-compatability a must? Not all OSI > > licenses are IIRC. > > > To what degree are extensions derivatives, under copyright law, of > MediaWiki code? Enough to have to be GPLed? That's a thorny one. > > (WordPress says all WordPress themes are derivatives and must > therefore be GPL, for example. There's a thriving cottage industry in > selling WordPress themes, but this would mean they wouldn't have much > leverage to stop customers then giving them away, even if that's not > how copyright technically works.) > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
