[Greasemonkey] GPL compatibility

[Aaron Boodman]

Ok, so we all agree. What now?

On 6/5/05, Matthew Gray <matthew at gray.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We've heard from 2 of the 3 (?) GM developers agreeing to re-
> >>> licensing
> >>> GM to GPL.  No word from Nikolas Coukouma.  Are there other
> >>> contributors that would need to agree?
> >>
> >>
> >> Matthew Gray made an early contribution in the form of a significant
> >> eventing change:
> >> http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/greasemonkey/2005-January/000013.html
> >>
> >> His site is here:
> >> http://www.mkgray.com:8000/
> 
> I like the idea of GPL licensing Greasemonkey. My only concern is
> that there may be some ambiguity as to whether scripts that use the
> Greasemonkey API may be covered.  I think everyone agrees that non-
> GPL'd userscripts should be possible. An explicit statement
> (analogous to the linux kernel module exception) that states that
> userscripts are not considered derivative should cover it.
> 
> >> We haven't heard from him lately... not sure why that is.
> 
> I feel bad for not participating more, but it seems the project is in
> capable hands.  I'm hoping to get a chance to reengage over the next
> few months.  I have an idea or two I'll discuss here when I get some
> time.
> 
> Thanks for the nudge regarding the license.
> 
>                                      ...Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>