The FSF's theory of GPL inheritance is based on the idea that your code has only one purpose: to extend the capabilities of GPL'ed code. It has no other use or function. So, to distribute it under any other license is an attempt to create a collective work that violates the GPL. This case is trivially destroyed by creating unit test code which isn't GPL'ed.
On Nov 8, 2011 1:08 PM, "David Gerard" &l
On 8 November 2011 18:02, Olivier Beaton olivier.beaton@gmail.com wrote:
If it's on company time it's All Rights Reserved and will never see the light of day. Way too many lawyers over here. Anyways it looks for my perticular case I'll probably end up with just a BSD header (was most likely overthinking/overparanoid), but as I keep repeating, and which Rob pointed out, it would be a good thing to a have a documented guideline (based on consensus) about what can be accepted into the repo. Key questions like is-gpl-compatability a must? Not all OSI licenses are IIRC.
To what degree are extensions derivatives, under copyright law, of MediaWiki code? Enough to have to be GPLed? That's a thorny one.
(WordPress says all WordPress themes are derivatives and must therefore be GPL, for example. There's a thriving cottage industry in selling WordPress themes, but this would mean they wouldn't have much leverage to stop customers then giving them away, even if that's not how copyright technically works.)
- d.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l