|
Plugin License
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday August 29, @07:50PM
(#3274)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday August 29, @07:51PM
(#3275)
|
|
|
|
|
It's nice to see CmdrTaco & Company reveal themselves to be true hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday August 29, @08:46PM
(#3276)
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they decide this is invalid, then we will stop using the GPL.
What the hell are you people thinking? Doesn't this strike you as blatantly hypocritical, considering that Slashdot is (or was, anyway) one of the biggest advocates of the GPL, above all other open source licenses? For a site that is nothing if not political, Slashdot would look mighty stupid running software that was (by their choice) no longer under the GPL.
Also, if you are planning on changing the license once it becomes inconvenient for you, what are you going to do about the code written by people who aren't regular Slash developers? You know, you can't just go around changing the license on other peoples' code. It's all about the programmers' freedom and all that bullshit, right?
--sdem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I for one am glad to see this.
I hope to GPL most or all of the plugins I write (and I am planning a few). But I'm happy to have the choice, and making some money on one or more of them might not be out of the question...
Yoder Internet Development [yoderdev.com]: Honest and Affordable Web Solutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well are you giving your code to anyone else? If not it's a moot point -- the GPL does not require you to distribute modifications.
Even if you did distribute it, I *think* you would be OK with a non-GPL license, at least as long as you don't ship it integrated with Slash. Just ship it in a separate package, and if you do modify Slash files then distribute those modifications as separate patches.
If you take code from Slash and put it in your main package, you definitely have been hit by the GPL "virus". Not that that's a bad thing. :-)
Yoder Internet Development [yoderdev.com]: Honest and Affordable Web Solutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for the clarification - and feel free to ignore the claims of hypocracy. Open Source does not equate to GPL. You can write open source and still not use the GPL license.
http://news.DiverseBooks.com/ SF and Computing Book News
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 31, @01:13PM
(#3291)
|
|
|
|
|
or "Yet Another Good Reason to use Nuke (or a fork)"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No problem. The article was drafted by myself and Taco. Its a bit strong in language but it gets across the propper point. Open Source does not mean GPL, and any license that restricts the end user on their own code (especially when its not a patch, but their own work in a plugin) is certainly not an open license.
For my own code I tend to use both the GPL and the BSD license. All depends on what it is, and what I need it to do.
--
You can't grep a dead tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Monday September 03, @12:20AM
(#3293)
|
|
|
|
|
No thanks. Anyone following Geekizoid knows what a piece of shit it is.
So, Nuke is a rip-off/fork of Slash that has yet more forks from it? Yeah, sounds like you have your act together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slashdot is not a GPL advocate, it is an open source advocate. Open source encompases many different licenses. The BSD license fit's into the opensource world and so do many other licenses including apache license, mit license etc. If the license does not fit, do not use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
