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.
License Choice: Critical to Success of Plugin Arch (Score:1)
--
Dave Aiello
Chatham Township Data Corporation [ctdata.com]