Continuing clarity issue on extension licensing.
Now previously I made a post regarding this which probably wasn't in the best of tack, and might of given the wrong impression I'm not about contributing, or I really wanted to impose licensing, which is not my desire at all.
I have always been under the impression, and I got this from the team, that extensions can be licensed (within reason) under different regimes. Unfortunately brought to light but recent lawsuits, implicitly at least this is not the GPL position.
I understand that if explicitly stated it should be fine to allow this. However I'm not a fan of the unwritten rule in cases like this, as wordpress for instance is highly selectively applying these rules. It would be good if we can get some official clarification if that is not too much trouble.
I think it would be sad to miss out on an economy of extensions. It is not about not releasing code, or being too restrictive. On the contrary.
If GPL didn't have these thorny issues that are little discussed, I wouldn't even have made the suggestion to switch, however it shouldn't have be necessary at all.
grep is your friend.