RE: licencing and modules

> > Version 45 ? Seriously though, if the licence has a grey
> area would UCSD
> > agree to putting an explicit statement for binary modules
> on the bottom?
> > After all, we're not changing the copyright - we're
> explaining how use
> > of the squid run-time module mechanism (after all there
> will be headers
> > to use and interfaces they must meet) constitutes a derivative. (Or
> > doesn't, depending on majority opinion here.
>
> So leave the issue blank, and let the companies who wishes to release
> non-free modules worry about the issue. After all, it is their neck at
> risk if there ever is a problem.
>
> What we can do is to add a note in the API documentation
> warning people
> that there might be an issue with the GPL license and releaseing
> non-free Squid modules.

I don't think that would be wise.
Most of the times leaving issues pending is worse than having them
solved the wrong way, and this is one of those times IMO.

I think the Linux position is quite good really. Basically it boils
down to (just for clarity, I think it's known to almost everyone):

"if you wish to add closed add-on modules using OUR interfaces, do so.
Don't expect them to work forever, as we will NOT maintain them
in any way, nor will we even CONSIDER for design purposes the
requests to maintain compatibility with those modules (this means,
we'll quite happily change interfaces as we see fit for our
purposes, and if this means binary-only modules will break, too bad
it's not our problem"

Basically this allows commercial people to do their dirty deeds, while
at the meantime explicitly freeing the Free developers from the
Dark Side of Commrecial Development.

This said, Squid offers many loopholes to the GPL under the form of
helpers.

Whatever the outcome, my strong suggestion is that we issue an addendum to
the copyright clarifying our position as a team.

-- 
	/kinkie