Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Slash Open Source Project

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • This is the right decision for the future growth of Slashcode as a content management platform. As I said on the mailing list when the license question was first kicked around:
    A plugin architecture ought to be a means to interface other products to Slashcode sites and should not dictate the terms underwhich those programs are distributed. It is widely believed that incorporating any GPLed code directly into another product forces a developer to GPL that product (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProp rietarySystem [gnu.org]). If plugins cannot be written without incorporating GPLed code, then we should be looking for a way to alleviate that....

    For the record, I am not against the Slashcode being licensed under the GPL. I just think that the plugin architecture should be as open and legally unencumbered as we can possibly make it.

    --

    --

    Dave Aiello
    Chatham Township Data Corporation [ctdata.com]