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 <jstpie...@mecheye.net> > I'm working on such a feature. > > On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 8:42 AM, thibaut bethune > <thibaut.beth...@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
