[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[Jeffrey Siegal]

Peter Hutnick wrote:
>>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.
> 
[snip]

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

Not everyone agrees with the FSFs interpretation that a separate process 
is what makes the difference.  There has been voluminous discussion 
about such things as remote object protocols and so forth.  Unless the 
FSF owns the copyright to the program in question, their opinion doesn't 
make all that much difference either.

>>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/!

What I wrote had nothing to do with technical merit or business value. 
If there are significantly licensing uncertainties surrounding your 
product, you're going to have a hard time getting customers to rely on 
it, and an even harder time getting investors to back you.  (Yeah, there 
are exceptions like VC backing Napster and so forth, but they're just 
that.)  This is particuarly the case if you're competing against a 
similar product which avoids that risk.