-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:38, ddutt@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm writing to request a change to the licensing of plugin modules in order
> to permit the release of plugins for proprietary protocols. I'm proposing
> that we change the licensing of the plugin API as per:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCLinkingOverControlledInterface
>
> This change will allow plugins for proprietary protocols to be released
> without being affected by GPL. The problem with GPL - according to
> conservative interpretations - is that it nullifies any patent on the
> proprietary protocol if the decoder is based on GPL. So, companies that are
> interested in releasing decoders for proprietary protocols, will not do so
> to avoid the legal ramifications of GPL licensing.
I don't have any of the code in question, and don't feel strongly one way or
the other. However some issues that are worth further discussion:
1. This is a change to the existing license, and potentially needs to be
approved by all copyright holders. What happens if someone says no?
2. Whether alternatives (such as the patent holders granting a restricted
patent license for use of techniques potentially covered by patent) are
compatible with the current license.
3. Whether the plug-in API is sufficiently well defined (in a documentation
sense, and also in a code stability sense) that this technique is
practicable.
Brad
- --
http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Aust. I'm registered. Are you?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE93IuNW6pHgIdAuOMRAurhAKCPZGtVSoThG9LPEhu+ZMM6ep+19QCdFEtE
UHnoqZJ7tXLqAfFtEuYKt0A=
=S9Ek
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
