Re: [DotGNU]Forum Update 17-apr-2001

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Silvernerd wrote:
> 
> 
> I seem to have misinterpreted the fact that DotGNU is trying to win over
> the industry as that DotGNU has another approach to the software
> industry than GNU. This could be a common mistake unexperienced people
> make when reading about DotGNU.
> 

I think that you're absolutely correct - perhaps this could be corrected
in the manifesto?  Or, would it be more appropriate in another document?
:)



> 
> The wrapper thing is actually a good idea for allowing plugins to be
> non-GPL without changing the license of the program, I'll build the
> plugin system on it. You are probably right that it isn't a good idea to
> try to make plugins GPL'd, but maybe it is possible to make a black-list
> of plugins working with unethical protocols and let the program read
> this list. I would however prefer a way of making them disclose their
> protocols under certain circumstances (like we have with the
> owner-of-the-data concept in webservices), but I don't think it will be
> legally possible.
> 

Well, much is legally possible but not legally palatable.  The
difference being that it can be done, but would not be optimal.  The
result in making plugins be GPL'ed is that you'd in essence be saying
that any program being called by your program must also GPL'ed.  This is
legally possible, but not legally palatable.  It restricts free use of
the program (listed as Freedom 0 in RMS' speeches)... although ethically
it's not a bad idea at all - but it would make implementation of forum
less likely to occur and would not necessarily generate the wanted
results since there's always some verbiage that can be construed in such
a way that there's a workaround for proprietary companies to get around
it - building a wrapper to do so would be just such a thing.

The key is not really exactly what we want to do, but what we can do.  I
personally think that the key is in striking a balance.  Perhaps writing
into the license that all plugins must be GPL'ed is a good thing - but
don't expect it to work exactly the way that it should. :)

Also, the idea is a blacklist is a good one - also, you could have a
whitelist (approved plugins) that give no warnings and a grey list that
are plugins that are not even reviewed.  This I think is firmly within
your grasp. :)



> Anyway thanks for making me realize my mistakes.
> 

Well, only so long as you make me realize mine when I make them. :)

        -Barry