Plugin Arch. for KDevelope 2.0
smeier at kdevelop.org
Thu Aug 2 12:30:52 UTC 2001
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, you wrote:
>It would be bad if nobody could write commericial Linux apps because the
>kernel is GPL'd. But it seems accepted by everyone, other than Microsoft,
>that you can mix GPL and non-GPL code in the same app, when you write an
>application which makes kernel calls. I think the reason for this is that
>kernel code doesn't have any relation to the code in typical applications
>running in the user space.
Yes, I think the level of abstraction in the kernel is large. Nobody will
suggest for example "kedit" is an extension of the Linux kernel. And as far
as I know, most of the applications don't make kernel calls, everything will
be directed through the libc so you have yet an other layer.
>be at risk from someone hacking together an open source replacement, and
>losing them all their market share overnight. Also I use a PowerPC machine,
>and I bet they wouldn't run on that, or any unusual architecture.
So, it is in your own interest if we only allow opensource plugins :-)
To come to a conclusion on this issue. Until we change our license model (a
GPL'ed KDevelop), it is allowed to distribute C/C++ plugins only under GPL or
compatible licenses (LGPL,X11 and so on.). For Java we don't have a solution
yet. Richard maybe?
If no one objects this will be the "official" position for the next time. ok?
Sorry, if I force a solution but for me it is important to have an answer on
The question is not, can they reason? nor,can they talk?
but, can they suffer? (Jeremy Bentham)
for verifying my signature or send encryted emails:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
to unsubscribe from this list send an email to kdevelop-devel-request at kdevelop.org with the following body:
More information about the KDevelop-devel