[MonoDevelop] Licensing concerns.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

> > >Right now, the new code in MonoDevelop is under basically NO license,
> > >which is totally unacceptable.
> > 
> > Not exactly; as every contribution will link against something that came 
> > from #develop (core, whatever else) it is derivative work. Even though it 
> > is lots of work. That's the whole idea of the GPL.
> 
> It is not a derivative work just because it 'links', if linking created
> a derivative work, you wouldn't need the tainting clauses in the GPL.
> 
> We basically took an existing framework that was licensed under the GPL,
> and wrote new code, our code can be licensed under *any* GPL compat
> license, which the MIT X11 is. That is my understanding, and has been
> repeatedly backed up by people who understand this situation far more
> than I.

There is a bit of confusion here.

If you extend a piece of GPL code, it should be licensed under GPL terms.

Now, adding a file to MD could be considered an extension, but you
could also present it like this:

Original:

	MyTool.cs	<- X11 code.
	MonoDevelop.cs	<- MonoDevelop code.

Add support to Monodevelop to use MyTool.cs:

	MyTool.cs	<- Verbatim, unmodified X11 code.
	MonoDevelopModified.cs <- New MonoDevelop code, with hooks to call X11 code.

Notice that the X11 code must not depend on classes, methods or
interface from the GPL bit.  

Miguel.