YAFERBIU Yet Another 'Free' Extensions Repos B****** It Up
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Now we have the Brigantia Beta and Gnome 3 (for some) has anybody else noticed how their alpha extensions repos [1] has code which has no explicit license [2] and some for which you cannot determine the license (if any) without installing it [3].
I mention it here because even after several days I still find myself incapable of writing to them in a moderate, calm, constructive fashion about it. Is there someone which a Gnome sign on who can?
[1] https://extensions.gnome.org/
[2] https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/214/pidgin-conversation-integration/
[3] https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/212/advanced-volume-mixer/
As far as I can say these extensions can be considered as derivative work and will have to be under the same license as gnome-shell, i.e. gplv2.
On 04/04/12 19:11, name at domain wrote:
> As far as I can say these extensions can be considered as derivative
> work and will have to be under the same license as gnome-shell, i.e. gplv2.
Thanks. I will check. I had assumed that as they are called extensions
they worked like Firefox extensions or LibreOffice macros for that matter.
From the GPL FAQ
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in? (#GPLAndPlugins)
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
From the GPL FAQ
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements
for the licenses of a plug-in? (#GPLAndPlugins)
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses
fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so
the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls
to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single
program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and
the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a
GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be
followed when those plug-ins are distributed.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between
them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some
options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios