Timeline for Rewriting GPL code to change license
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 2011 at 11:34 | comment | added | vartec | @A: distribution with other programs is "aggregation", and explicitly allowed by GPL. And no, that's not my call. Personally, I wouldn't touch GPL library even with 10-feet long stick. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 11:26 | comment | added | AProgrammer | The question is about plug-in and plug-in are per nature not indispensable. I wouldn't bet my company that structuring a program in two processes, one GPLed because it used GPLed libraries the other not because we want to keep the source private is legit. Especially when both are distributed together. But that's your call. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 9:56 | comment | added | vartec | @AProgrammer: even FSF says, that if it's separate process, then these are separate programs, thus not derivate work. FAQ's about the plugins, but the logic still applies: gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 9:51 | comment | added | AProgrammer | I'm far from sure that socket is a barrier. According to our lawyers, engineers are too focused by technical measures while the global effect is what is checked by the law. Publishing a socket interface and giving an example use in emacs lisp was OK for them. But giving the possibility to automatically install emacs along with our program wasn't. You are right for the distribution. But note that you can't prevent the one to whom you distribute to distribute further. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 9:28 | history | answered | vartec | CC BY-SA 3.0 |