Subject: Re: Question regarding modules/pluggins license?
From: Alex Rousskov <>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:51:03 -0700 (MST)

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> Larry Masters <> writes:
> > The project has an API that other developers can use to create
> > these modules/pluggins so they work within the framework of the
> > project. Questions and many comments have been raised as to how
> > the modules/pluggins have to be licensed. Some feel that since
> > they use the published API that they have to be GPL. Others feel
> > that they can be licensed however the developer chooses be it a
> > open source license or a "closed source" license.
> The best approach is certainly for you, the core developers, to
> decide which you want to be true, and to spell that out explicitly
> in the documentation.

I would like to agree with Ian: You have chosen a complicated license
interpretation of which varies (GPL). Be very explicit about your
intent. Let people know, as a part of the licensing information,
whether they must use your license for their plugins.

The only reason not to be explicit in this case is if your team is
worried about licenses and other legal documents getting longer and
longer, with fewer and fewer people being able to agree on their "true
meaning". A part of me actually welcomes that trend: I hope that when
common licenses and warranty disclaimers reach 100(?) page threshold,
people will realize the stupidity of the situation and go back to
basic principles.


license-discuss archive is at