>Is it possible to develop plug-ins that are not licensed under the
>GPL? I'm in the process of learning C and thought that as a first
>project I might have a go at a simple plug-in. It'll still be open
>source, just I might use BSD or some such.
Rockbox threatened me with legal action and demanded that I use "GPL"
(??"or a compatable license"??) rather than my personal choice of just good
old fashioned "PD - here it is, enjoy. License"
BSD may be "compatable", and "compatable" may go unchallenged, I don't
know. But if you're hoping to allow others to exercise their human right
to have morals which may mean making money with your 'free' code (some
people need money to be happy) ...GPL, and sadly therefore Rockbox, is not
appropriate for you.
I have a number of (some nasty) emails from Rockbox (leaders) that I have
had no choice but to use GPL on my intellectual property because, to be of
use, it must be "statically linked" (think that's the right term) to the
Rockbox core code! ...maybe this is wrong, either way, you might want to
check with our leader and his brother before making any firm decisions.
A mate of mine who (now) used to be (LOL) an advocate of GPL, told me of a
number of cute loop-holes in the License last night - such as refusing to
release your code, but instead release a docuent which describes your code
using the C language, and releasing the compiled binaries on anonymous
sites as "unofficial compiles" etc (ala "LAME"). Also, apparently because
I do not include a "paper mail" contact address, my code cannot be GPL.
Received on Mon Jan 10 18:18:47 2005