Cisco Cisco IPICS Dispatch Console Licensing Information

Does that make sense to you?

 

> I asked Richard to comment on several scenarios involving plug-ins

> explain whether or not they were in violation of the GPL.  So far he

> as only addressed one and has effectively admitted a hole.  This is

> the one I asked that he's responded to:

>     [A] non-GPL'd plug-in writer writes a plug-in for a non-GPL'd

>     program.  Another author writes a GPL'd program making the

>     first author's plug-ins compatible with his program.  Are now

>     the plug-in author's plug-ins now retroactively required to be

>     GPL'd?

>

> His response:

>     No, because the plug-in was not written to extend this program.

>

> I find it suspicious that whether or not the GPL would apply to the

> plug-in depends on the mindset of the author.

 

The above makes no sense if you think of it as a "plug in" issue, but it

makes sense if you think of it as a "derived work" issue, along with

taking "intent" into account.

 

I know lawyers tend to not like the notion of "intent", because it brings

in another whole range of gray areas, but it's obviously a legal reality.

 

Ok, enough blathering from me. I'd just like to finish off with a few

comments, just to clarify my personal stand:

 

- I'm obviously not the only copyright holder of Linux, and I did so on

  purpose for several reasons. One reason is just because I hate the

  paperwork and other cr*p that goes along with copyright assignments.

 

  Another is that I don't much like copyright assignments at all: the

  author is the author, and he may be bound by my requirement for GPL,

  but that doesn't mean that he should give his copyright to me.

 

  A third reason, and the most relevant reason here, is that I want

  people to _know_ that I cannot control the sources. I can write you a

  note to say that "for use XXX, I do not consider module YYY to be a

  derived work of my kernel", but that would not really matter that much.

  Any other Linux copyright holder might still sue you.

 

  This third reason is what makes people who otherwise might not trust me

  realize that I cannot screw people over. I am bound by the same

  agreement that I require of everybody else, and the only special status

  I really have is a totally non-legal issue: people trust me.

 

  (Yes, I realize that I probably would end up having more legal status