RE: licencing and modules

> > > Seriously though, does it matter? If companies start releasing
> > > binary-only modules for squid, I'll be flattered. And since I bet
> > > they'll need to fix up some internal bit of squid to get a little
> > > more performance or flexibility, the GPLness is still there.
> >
> > Actually, dynamically-loaded modules, in RMS's explanation of
> > the GPL, form a "derived work" and thus MUST be GPL'ed as well.
> > This is a controversial matter, since it's not explicitly covered
> > in the GPL, but only in side-notes and declarations by Stallman
> > and others. For instance, Linus Torvalds
> > explicitly stated that in his opinion loading a Linux kernel module
> > does NOT constitute creating a derivative work.
> > But that has to be explicitly _allowed_ under the most common
> > interpretation of the GPL.
> > I suggest that we discuss the fact, and then explicitly add
> a statement
> > as an addendum to the copyright notices somewhere.
>
> Has it actually been tested? to me the GPL is more of a
> social contract
> than anything binding. Ie, I won't run out and activitely use
> GPL software in a custom project that we're going to wrap up and sell.
> Not in any fashion that would break the GPL. Not for fear of lawyers
> but because I try to be a semi-decent netizen.

The GPL was never taken to court. All infringers quickly backed
off using GPL-ed code.

> However, this hasn't stopped quite a lot of companies.
> (Squid, Linux, all things GPL..)

Hehe. Neither has the BSD license :-)

> > We might be "generous" and state that dynamically linking a
> module to
> > squid does not constitute a derivative work, or we might be
> Stallman-ish
> > and state that it does. Either way, I think that a
> statement will only
> > do good since it will remove this potential loophole either way.
> >
> > I hope I've been confusing enough.
>
> nope, you haven't been confusing at all. :-)
>
> Just read COPYRIGHT, note that:
>
> This software product, SQUID, is developed by a team of individuals,
> and copyrighted (C) 2001 by the Regents of the University of
> California, with all rights reserved. UCSD administered the NLANR
> Cache grants, NCR 9616602 and NCR 9521745 under which most of this
> code was developed.
>
> .. and that if we wanted to change the licence, we should
> rewrite squid
> from scratch and own the copyright ourselves.
>
> Who is up for that? :-)

Not me.

IIRC Harvest was originally under a BSD license. How was it possible
to change that to a GPL for Squid then?

BTW: there's an error in the ChangeLog about the multi-domain-NTLM helper.
It was written by me :-)

-- 
	/kinkie