[Greasemonkey] GPL compatibility

[Mark Pilgrim]

On 6/3/05, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/05, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/28/05, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > GPL is fine by me. Actually, I'd prefer something more like the
> > > Academic Free License because it doesn't restrict mods to being as
> > > open as the original.
> >
> > Well that wouldn't really be a step in the right direction, since the
> > Academic Free License isn't GPL-compatible either.
> 
> Mark, can you please explain what you mean by that? Or point me at a
> good compare-and-contrast OS licenses page?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

GPL compatibility matters because people can create their own
standalone extensions using the Greasemonkey compiler, which includes
code from Greasemonkey itself in the resulting .XPI file.  So the
license of Greasemonkey itself determines how developers can license
their compiled extensions:

1. Licensing Greasemonkey under the GPL would force developers to
license their compiled extensions under the GPL.
2. Licensing Greasemonkey under a GPL-compatible license such as
BSD-new or MIT would allow (but not require) developers to license
their compiled extensions under the GPL.
3. Licensing Greasemonkey under a non-GPL-compatible license such as
MPL or AFL would preclude developers from licensing their compiled
extensions under the GPL.

#3 is the current state.  I'm pushing for #1, but would settle for #2.

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark