A few comments

[Eion Robb]

> To claim that ld.so linking of ELF shared libraries in
> the same process is the only way that "linking" can be done is to
> ignore huge amounts of work on remote method invocations, distributed
> objects, late-bound scripting languages, and what-have-you.

The GPL FAQ seems to suggest that something in a different process does  
indeed count as a different program
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
<quote>
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the  
requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses  
fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs,  
so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.
</quote>
Wasn't there a fork of Pidgin somewhere that did do this so that plugins  
could be closed source?  I would consider that more of a GPL 'spirt'  
violation thing.

Would "send offline message" count as a remote method invocation?

> And I am not happy with this obvious circumvention of the intent of
> the GPL.  As long as no one is happy...  :-P
I get the feeling that a legal opinion (from a real lawyer, no less)  
wouldn't sway you? :) 'Intent' is a tricky one to put on paper or indeed,  
into a legal document; something that the GPLv3 tries to address.

> I have said my piece here; in the end, you are the one who has to make
> the decision of whether or not you wish to circumvent the GPL, violate
> the GPL, proceed in opposition to the wishes of at least some of the
> Pidgin development team and community, etc., as you understand the
> situation and see fit.  I sense that you are either not understanding
> or not buying my arguments, so I see no reason to continue to repeat
> them.  I am *not* a license lawyer, and do not wish to be; I am not
> comfortable with what you are doing, and rather it would not continue.
> The rest of the community can weigh in as they see fit.  If it is
> consensus that what you are doing is shady, illegal, or immoral, I
> would appreciate if it went on outside of the greater Pidgin
> community.

Fair enough.  I'm not wanting to upset or make anyone uncomfortable anyone  
over a bit of code.  I'm happy to take my code elsewhere if there was  
consensus (how would that happen btw... is there some kind of voting thing  
that happens?), or if lawyers found it to be illegal.  I'm still happy to  
plod away at improving Pidgin/libpurple -- as long as its not too  
'immoral' of me to try to combine IM's with chat's :)