[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[Peter Hutnick]

Jeffrey Siegal said:
> Peter Hutnick wrote:
>> I'm not completely convinced of this.  Let's say you release your
>> framework under the GPL.  I fork it and create a GPL to non-GPL plugin
>> interface.
>
> It is very unclear if is would be possible for you to create a "GPL to
> non-GPL plugin interface."  Certainly it violates the spirit of the GPL.

I disagree.

>   Whether it violates the letter as well is not something that has been
> determined in court, as far as I know, but certainly there would be
> enough uncertainty so as to make it difficult for you to build a
> business on that.

See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins .

In the (very) simplest case the GPLed program in question can run
GPL-incompatible plugins with no modification and no violation.  That is,
if the "framework" forks to plugins as is.

Absent that condition I (the "bad" guy) have ample options such as
modifying the program to fork to plugins (and releasing that version, but
not the plugins, under the terms of the GPL) or writing an LGPL (or other
GPL-compatible-but-more-permissive license) [uber|meta|plugin]-plugin that
uses the existing plugin interface, but accepts proprietary plugins.

Comeon, ask me a harder one :-P

-Peter

PS:

> but certainly there would be enough uncertainty so as to make it
difficult for
> you to build a business on that.

Dude, one of the most successful businesses in the WORLD was built on /DOS/!

-P