Selling Plugins and copyright

What I always find interesting is that craftbukkit.jar is a derivative of bukkit.jar which is GPL, however since assuming craftbukkti and bukkit are from the same entity i don't think they are not subject to the fact that bukkit.jar is GPL..

Personally, I find that the fact that craftbukkit.jar is licensed under LGPL slightly odd. By my understanding you can't take GPL software and release it under LGPL. If you compile a plugin against craftbukkit.jar it is a derivative work of craftbukkit.jar and thus subject to what craftbukkit.jar is licensed under.

Again, not a lawyer.

 

This would be true IF you were using some of there souce code in your code OR compiling there jar or part of there jar inside your compiled jar. If you do not do either of these then your compilation is YOURS to distibute and copyright how you see fit.

On a personal note: My kids got me started making plugins for bukkit because they wanted something they couldn't find and since I have programmed for years they knew it wasn't asking something hard of me.

Personally I would not try to charge for a plugin. I do it to share my creations with all so they will get enjoyment out of them. I get my money from writing real applications in the real world. This is just fun stuff I do im my free time. Yes I will except donations, but not to get rich, you won't get rich off of plugin donations, but a few dollars now and then shows appreciation for my work.

 

Since you've read it, could you point out the place where it clearly states that?

 

Check out this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

 

"This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license" - interesting, I learned something. So the GPL isn't mandatory, then. For reference, here's a list of licenses the FSF considers as compatible, or otherwise: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

LexLaiden although I agree with you 99% (especially regarding the reasons for creating plugins), I'm still gonna be argumentative about this one point

From the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL):

Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked together.​

​

A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.​

(Emphasis mine)

EDIT by Moderator: merged posts, please use the edit button instead of double posting.