Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Writing plug-ins

Re: Writing plug-ins

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: 2005-01-10

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, BlueChip wrote:

(I'll only response once on this subject to reduce the FUD BC spreads about
GPL and certain Rockbox members. We will always come back to that.)

> 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"

For the record, we (at least I) objected to you not releasing the source code
at all.

> BSD may be "compatable", and "compatable" may go unchallenged, I don't know.

The Modified BSD license is compatible, yes. The Original BSD is not.

See http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses and
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses

> 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!

Plugins are not statically linked, they're dynamically linked. And we did
provide links to the GPL FAQ that explained that viewpoint:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

> 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

Sorry, but that would be a license violation. Ask your friend to read the
license again and especially the part in chapter 3 mentioning "the preferred
form of the work".

> and releasing the compiled binaries on anonymous sites as "unofficial
> compiles" etc (ala "LAME").

Releasing anonymous binaries of GPL software is not to find loop-holes in the
license, it is just how you avoid to adhere to it. Just like you do when you
copy DVD films or commercial software.

> Also, apparently because I do not include a "paper mail" contact address, my
> code cannot be GPL.

That's not a problem related to GPL. That's a problem between the Rockbox
management and you.

-- 
  Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/
_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on Mon Jan 10 19:37:31 2005

Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa