Re: [Muine] Re: GStreamer Relicensing

[Matthew Good <muine matt-good net>]

On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 02:25 +0100, Jorn Baayen wrote:
> Out of shameless curiousity, what makes adding a clause so bad? 

Confusion?  Inconsistency?  I guess I don't have particular concerns
with the actual terms of the clause, but I feel like there's something
to be said for sticking to pristine licenses for the sake of
consistency.  I suppose this is a short and fairly clear clause, though
I think there is a value to having the GPL as a standard.  When I see
that an application is licensed under the GPL I immediately know what I
can or can't do with the code, whereas if lots of applications start
adding clauses to the GPL the situation becomes a bit muddled.

Maybe more to the point, I am unsure of the effect that it would have
for people wanting to borrow or contribute code.  If it's pure GPL the
terms are understood, but would the extra clause need to carry over to
other applications borrowing code from Muine?  Also how would it impact
the inclusion of other GPL code into Muine, since it would make an
allowance not necessarily permitted by the other author?

I think the GStreamer folks have been trying to talk through some of
these issues with the FSF.  They recommend the LGPL, I suppose somewhat
for the sake of simplicity.  The more I think about it the more I think
I agree with them.  The only situation I can see much of a difference in
is for Muine (not GStreamer) plugins.  With the exemption Muine plugins
would still be subject to the GPL, though under the LGPL people could
write non-free plugins.  

So after tossing around some ideas there, I guess I'd have to say that I
like the idea of the LGPL.  Then Muine could clearly be linked against
non-free GStreamer plugins, but without adding confusion to the
licensing.

-- 
Matthew Good <muine matt-good net>