Plugin authors might want to consider adding a LICENSE document to their plugin distributions - something we haven't done, and which I'll go back and do. Elgg itself is GPL v2 of course, but that doesn't mean plugins have to be. It's probably good practice to make this crystal clear.
Posted by Ben Werdmuller @ Plugins
Comments
excellent point - though if plugins like folio, private messaging, media and others are gpl'd, then they certainly raise the bar for what a "not free" plugin would have to do! the only thing i could really imagine are very heavy duty plugins that automate integration wiht other applications (e.g. a one-click mediawiki/moodle/drupal type of thing), which would be quite a feat...
daveinboston on Thursday, 08 March 2007, 16:14 UTC # |
Actually, I've had this discussion before with certain Mambo plugin authors. My interpretation of the GPL and from the GPL FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins - the plugins will also have to be licensed as GPL too.
Granted, it would probably depend upon the plugin, as I feel the nature of PHP and plugins makes it borderline (as compared to compiled programs), but unless the plugin ONLY passed data to the main code (ie: merely communicated) without calling functions from the main code, it would need to follow the underlying question. The nature and concepts of plugins kind of makes such a situation a little unlikely. Obviously, there is no case law on this issue any discussion of matters such as these are hypothetical - I really wish GNU coud just make it explicitly either a yes or no option. But the reality is that what is holding it back is not the license, but what the threshold is to say when that license is invoked. Kind of.
Obviously, there is an enforcement issue in general with the GPL, so it is kind of moot. And if you, as developers, don't care - it's even more moot.
And I am required to disclaim: None of this information is to be construed as legal advice.
SpartanLaw on Friday, 30 March 2007, 00:36 UTC # |
| View blog | Archive | Friends' blogs | View all posts
Comments
Actually, I've had this discussion before with certain Mambo plugin authors. My interpretation of the GPL and from the GPL FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins - the plugins will also have to be licensed as GPL too.
Granted, it would probably depend upon the plugin, as I feel the nature of PHP and plugins makes it borderline (as compared to compiled programs), but unless the plugin ONLY passed data to the main code (ie: merely communicated) without calling functions from the main code, it would need to follow the underlying question. The nature and concepts of plugins kind of makes such a situation a little unlikely. Obviously, there is no case law on this issue any discussion of matters such as these are hypothetical - I really wish GNU coud just make it explicitly either a yes or no option. But the reality is that what is holding it back is not the license, but what the threshold is to say when that license is invoked. Kind of.
Obviously, there is an enforcement issue in general with the GPL, so it is kind of moot. And if you, as developers, don't care - it's even more moot.
And I am required to disclaim: None of this information is to be construed as legal advice.