-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 schrieb Wichert Akkerman: > On 12/16/09 10:16 , Mikko Ohtamaa wrote: >>>> http://www.devspace.com/?p=10 >>> >>> That page is about something completely different. Also note >>> that the MySQL library is not a pure GPL but has a special >>> exception clause redefines derived works, so that does not >>> apply here either. >> >> That's why I stated they are "almost" similar cases... if the >> plug-in API argument is tested somewhere then of course it would >> make it a precedence. I hope someone could point such a >> precedence. Even in that case it would just apply in certain, >> common law country. >> >> Meanwhile, the world continues to be not black and white, but >> grey, outside Plone too: >> >> http://www.webmaster-source.com/2009/01/29/why-theyre-wrong-wordpress-plugins-shouldnt-have-to-be-gpl/ > > > >> If you listen to random developers, sure. I have seen so many > developers make so many bogus claims about licensing that I do not > put any trust in blog posts like that. Might I suggest that you > use arguments from people who have a real legal knowledge instead? > Places like groklaw, gpl-violations.org, the various FSF and > related organisations, etc. Could we come back to the original question about PortalTransform in particular?
Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAksopysACgkQCJIWIbr9KYyE0ACdH/EtL0rlyplD25IRHNdHDsTf Ck8AnRhuqm1ryhjDC2P9eD8P2KhCP2z9 =cIMF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<<attachment: lists.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
