Re: Sweet Tooth : license of uploaded extensions for GNOME Shell ?

["Norman L. Smith" <nls1729 gmail com>]

Hello, Thibaut

First I received the message from the list:
Received: by 10.223.86.131 with SMTP id s3csp30677fal; 
Sun, 19 May 2013 17:28:47 -0700 (PDT)

It is in the April archives dated 2013-04-24.  That
is strange in itself.  Since no one answered the
post I will give it a shot.

I don't claim to speak for Jasper but I think this
issue was settled long ago.  If I am wrong I would
like to know.

The "Add yours" link requires you to log in.
There is a check box on the upload page that states 
"I verify that my extension can be distributed under 
the terms of the GPLv2+".

Norman


On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:49 +0200, thibaut bethune wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Anything new on that topic ?
>
>
> I still don't see any information regarding extensions license on
> https://extensions.gnome.org/
>
>
> Thanks !
>
>
> 2012/1/3 Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre mecheye net>
>         I'm working on such a feature.
>         
>         On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 8:42 AM, thibaut bethune
>         <thibaut bethune gmail com> wrote:
>         > Hi,
>         >
>         > I'm looking to https://extensions.gnome.org/upload/ but i
>         still don't
>         > see any requirement to authors to agree to
>         > distribute their code under the GPL v2 or later when they
>         upload an
>         > extension to extensions.gnome.org ?
>         >
>         > I guess that the sooner it will be done the easier it will
>         be to solve
>         > the potential issue (before the site provide 100+
>         extensions !)
>         >
>         > Thanks
>         >
>         > Thibaut
>         >
>         > On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:19:00 -0400 Owen Taylor wrote:
>         >
>         > "On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 14:47 +0200, Maciej Marcin Piechotka
>         wrote:
>         >> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:33 +0200, thibaut bethune wrote:
>         >> > Hi,
>         >> >
>         >> > I've just learned about that project and i find it great.
>         >> >
>         >> > I haven't tried it yet but i saw that video
>         >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luZuhn5_b_8
>         >> >
>         >> > I just wanted to be sure that the interface will precise
>         the extension license.
>         >> >
>         >> > Ideally it should maybe require the uploaded extension to
>         have the
>         >> > same license that GNOME itself ?
>         >> >
>         >> > Thanks
>         >> >
>         >> > Thibaut
>         >> > France
>         >>
>         >> I may be wrong but as gnome-shell is on GPL isn't only GPL
>         legal (but
>         >> IANAL)?
>         >
>         > It's a somewhat complicated question:
>         >
>         > If the extension isn't a derived work of the GNOME Shell
>         code, then it's
>         > fine to distribute the extension code under whatever license
>         you want -
>         > BSD, proprietary, whatever. Because it's not a derived work
>         of GNOME
>         > Shell, the license of GNOME Shell can't matter.
>         >
>         > Now, the combination of GNOME Shell and the extension
>         wouldn't be
>         > distributable. So as a _policy_ thing (not a legal thing),
>         we we
>         > probably in any case want to require all extensions on
>         > extensions.gnome.org to be at least GPL compatible - to be
>         under GPL,
>         > LGPL, BSD, MIT, etc.
>         >
>         > But are extensions derived works of the GNOME Shell code? If
>         you copy
>         > code from GNOME Shell, obviously that makes your code a
>         derived work.
>         > If you don't copy any code - if all the code is written from
>         scratch,
>         > then there is still an argument that since you  had to look
>         at the GNOME
>         > Shell code to write your extension, you had to test your
>         code with the
>         > shell, etc, it might still be a derived work. (This is
>         something that
>         > has been discussed at great length with respect to the
>         kernel modules;
>         > I don't think there's a definitive answer.)
>         >
>         > To me, the simplest thing is that we require authors to
>         agree to
>         > distribute their code under the GPL v2 or later when they
>         upload an
>         > extension to extensions.gnome.org, and that's the license we
>         use
>         > when distributing extensions.
>         >
>         > If an extension author wants declare in a README file or
>         code comments
>         > that their extension code is also available under more
>         permissive terms,
>         > that's their call, and it's not up to us to check that
>         assertion or
>         > prevent them from making it.
>         >
>         > - Owen"
>         
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > gnome-shell-list mailing list
>         > gnome-shell-list gnome org
>         > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list
>         
>         
>         
>         --
>           Jasper
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-shell-list mailing list
> gnome-shell-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list