GPL Violation

Jeff Sadowski jeff.sadowski at
Mon Sep 28 13:42:06 EDT 2009

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Marc Seiler <mseiler at> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Sadowski <jeff.sadowski at> wrote:
>> Ok then yup it is. One reason not to use gpl code if you want to use a
>> proprietary plugin.
>> Maybe they can move their plugin to some other app.
>> This seems kind of messed up for a unified messenger.
>> Does the skype plugin follow the same fate?
>> I would think you would maybe want to use some closed source apps
>> (like some OCR program for maybe doing captcha for you, like for the
>> yahoo rooms) with a plugin through pidgin. That same stipulation makes
>> it impossible to do, right? Or could you get around it some how?
>> Or maybe a closed source protocol(like for some sort of unreleased
>> encryption) for an IM that would also fit the same fate, right?
>> (I would think things like this exist and I am curious that is the
>> only reason I ask)
> Well the skype plugin itself is open and the source code is available
> so the plugin does not violate like the mebeam plugin. If it was like
> that pretty much every protocol but xmpp iirc would be in jeopardy.
> You have to understand that regardless of if the protocol itself is
> closed source and violates the gpl doesn't matter as long as the
> plugin itself being used is open and doesn't violate the gpl. Like I
> said pretty much every protocol used in pidgin is a closed source
> backwards engineered protocols.

So its a structuring problem?
If they moved their proprietary code to a dll and made calls to it and
distributed a binary dll and open sourced the plugin that made calls
to the proprietary dll then it would be alright? Just curious?

>  Thank you,
>    Marc
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at

More information about the Devel mailing list