A few comments

[Eion Robb]

> Introducing a non-open source component means that the result is no
> longer, as whole, Free.  The use of the Skype API via DBUS or the like
> probably holds up in court (I'm not aware of whether this has been
> tested, but the language of the GPL and of its FAQ lead me to believe
> this is [unfortunately] probably true) but violates the spirit of the
> license.  That spirit is the sense in which this is 'wrong'.
> -Evan

> You *are* linking to a non-free library, that is the point; did you
> not read my previous email?  D-Bus or X11 is simply being used in the
> sense of an ABI translator, in this instance.  This is no different
> than linking in a high-level interpreted language, or via a CORBA or
> RMI interface.  Do not confuse dynamic linking via ld.so with logical
> linking.
> Ethan

Forgive me if I'm sounding pushy or evil for talking about  
interoperability of a closed sourced protocol with an open-source  
program.  I'm not trying to upset anyone here, just trying to talk through  
my logic as I see it.  I'm not demanding it be put into libpurple, I just  
want people to share and develop a plugin that I find useful for myself.   
That was my idea of the 'spirit' of the GPL, sharing and contributing to  
code.  I also was under the impression that the 'spirit' stuff was  
incorporated into GPLv3, so if that's what the GPL FAQ references,  
shouldn't the 'spirit' already be accounted for?  But I fear turning us  
into a hippy community with talk of 'spirit' and 'feelings' :)

My impression is that libpurple/Pidgin/etc already interacts with closed  
services.  There are some protocols that are open, and some that are  
closed.  Is there an open MSN server? an open MySpace server? an open AIM  
server?  Perhaps there is now, but was there one when Gaim first came  
out?  My point is that not all parts of a protocol need to be 100% 'Free'  
to be implemented.  This isn't disobeying the GPL because the plugin only  
comunnicates with the closed server/protocol.
Ethan, you seem to combine "communicating with a library" with "linking to  
a library", which I would call two vastly different things.  After all,  
you would not call communication with a server "linking to a server".  
Otherwise we wouldn't be able to "link" with the MSN servers.  Rr are you  
saying I'm using ld.so? (which I'm not)  I'm still confused on your  
point... it seems to be some obscure exception to me.  I still see direct  
parallelism with any other protocol: making OS calls to communicate with a  
server.  Maybe you can explain with a different example?

There seems to be a difference of opinion between Evan and Ethan here.  It  
would be good to get some consensus, though that may be tricky in a  
community-based project, or at least to hear some opinions of others on  
the list.

I'm quite happy keeping this plugin as a plugin, I'm just not happy with  
having to deal with all this legal stuff.  Are the EFF approachable?   
Would it be a good idea to ask them for an opinion?

--Eion