That thing about GPL not applicable for add-ons is mostly propaganda IMHO. It has long been established that plugins under GPL are not suddenly forcing the environment they are in to open up under GPL, too, because if it were so, every software on Windows released under GPL would require Windows itself to be forced under GPL, too. After all, almost every windows binary is linking to some closed source binary (the WINAPI), right?
Nope. The GPL states that the frontier is the EXECUTABLE.
Moreover:
From the
Gnu Site:
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program? (#GPLPluginsInNF)
If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.
So there's no problem with GPL programs running on Windows neither.
If someone really comes up and tries to force Martin to open up the source of Orbiter, just because fred18 made Multistage2015 released under GPLv3, I am sure that every court in the UK will laugh in that person's face for this kind of stupid bullying.
You (and that someone) are holding, I mean
, got it wrong. In this specific case, the GPL violator is the guy who released the code under the GPL! He is liable to be sued by intentionally released a GPL program that can not be used without violating the GPL, this guy will be the one in trouble with EFF and FSF, not Martin.
But to be honest, I can't care less if it is GPL or LGPL or even MIT, as long as the source code (and the resulting binaries) remains open for people to continue the work if the bus factor hits again. His previous distribution restrictions clearly did not allow for that, hence my suggestion.
I care because I don't intent to violate anybody's license if I could avoid.
It would not prevent me to use the code or binary, but I would be more picky at giving the due credits, as I don't want to be bothered by people claiming GPL violations.
So let me get that straight: you are claiming that everybody releasing and/or distributing an Orbiter addon under GPL is doing so illegally?
No. The license is. Sorry.
---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------
Guys, relevant to the license, i just want to keep things as simple as possible. If any kind of license generates mess, i'll simply release the code without specifying anything.
You will need a license to protect your name if anyone decides to overtake your project, or fork it to his own needs and when a problem that he creates rises, you can claim it's not your fault.
The less problematic and more permissive license I know that you can safely use is the BSD: it mainly says "do what you want with this code, just don't remove the copyright headers neither distribute it using my or the project's name".
And this is the reason that anybody can use FreeBSD code, but just some dudes could create OpenBSD and NetBSD projects - if you try to create another clone called MyBSD, you can be prosecuted by copyright violation : the BSD guys don't want you making money with their names, just with the code.
I think this will do for you, if you don't care about who and how your code is used.