[Geany] Plugin licensing ( was Common SVN...)

[Frank Lanitz]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:44:47 -0600
"Jeff Pohlmeyer" <yetanothergeek at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2008 8:23 AM, Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
> 
> > But I suggest any further discussion on this topic
> > should be done in a new thread.
> 
> I don't know if it really merits its own thread,
> but here goes...
> 
> 
> > The easiest thing would be to remove this phrase
> > but are we allowed to?
> 
> I would say you can, unless somebody who contributed
> to geany in the past objects to it. If they do, you
> can either add the phrase back in again, or simply
> remove or re-implement the code they contributed.

I agree. But I'm still not sure, if it is really necessary, since GPLv2
is a part of GPLv2 or later. 

But I see another problem: If Geany is GPLv2 only there might will be
problems with Plugins written under conditions of GPLv3, since v2 is
not completly compatible to v3. 

> > Besides any lethal considerations which I don't know,
> > in my opinion the choice of the licence of plugins
> > is independent from Geany's licence as long as it is
> > compatible with GPLv2.
> 
> I agree, as long as the plugin is distributed separately.
> But if a plugin's source is distributed along with Geany,
> then it would add the extra burden of explaining any small
> nuances between the way the plugin interprets the GPL
> (v2 only) and the way Geany currently sees it (v2 or later)
>
> I suppose that's still not a problem, just a possible
> source of confusion.

That's true.

I suppose to keep GPLv2 or any later so the distributor can decide,
which licence he like to choice. Also to setup a paypal-account to
collect money to ask a lawyer, what's the best :D 

Frank
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20080105/e1a42fe0/attachment.pgp>