I'm leaning toward going with gplv3 but...

[Chris Travers]

2009/8/10 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no>:
> "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson at intel.com> writes:
>> Aaron Aichlmayr <waterfoul at gmail.com> writes:
>> > First I wanted to have an extension system where the extension devs
>> > are encouraged to share but are allowed to keep their extensions in
>> > house as long as they did not edit the original code.
>> The 'not editing the original code' part makes it hard for me to see
>> how you can use an open source license.
>
> Replace "extension" with "plugin", and it will all become clear...

IANAL, but having read extensive discussions in the legal community
about this question it seems to me:
1)  Dag is right (and both Moglen and Stallman are wrong) about
interfaces being copyrightable.
2)  Whether a plugin is subject to copyright restrictions on the
parent work is a complex question which does not involve questions of
interfaces.  The fact that something communicates only over sockets
doesn't prevent it from posing derivative works problems, and the fact
that something uses a library doesn't make it a derivative of that
library.

Also his recollections of SCO v. IBM are the same as mine.

I would suggest that Aaron seek competent legal help, whether from the
SFLC or elsewhere.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers