A few comments

[Michael]

Ethan Blanton wrote:
> This is all obviously less encumbered than the abomination of a GPL
> violation which is any plugin linking the Skype API.  Since your
> plugin can never be legally released, you may use whatever artwork you
> so choose for your own purposes.


Please note:  This is an honest question, not flamebait or bashing:

I may be missing something, but I fail to see how it is an abomination.
 How can releasing the source code to something that happens to link
between a GPL library and a non-free library be a horrible bad thing?
Obviously it can't be included in pidgin binaries, and maybe even the
author couldn't release it as a binary, but how can it be bad for the
author to make the source code for his plugin available without
distributing the non-free skype stuff?  Is it somehow bad to say "My
code is open source, but it's not going to do much for you if you don't
agree to skype's conditions when you download their library from them"

It seems that you would just be offering up code that binds some stuff
together, and it is up to the end user to decide whether they want to
use it or not (This all presumes the plugin author is just releasing
source only).