Modules that integrate non-GPL PHP apps violate the GPL.

[Karoly Negyesi]

If I write some code, any code, it is my writing and I can say "the copy, the distribution and the modification of this code is covered by GPL" -- GPL is only about these.

Now that if this code, Drupal and some third party app together makes an application which can not be distributed/modified under the GPL because said third party has a nonGPL compatible licence -- tough luck, I do not care, we do not care. drupal.org does not host such applications, so what's the big deal...?

To put in another way, this means that depending on what routines a script calls it might not licenceable under GPL...?

[Earnie]

Quoting Jeff Eaton <jeff@...>:

> On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Darren Oh wrote:
>
>> I still think the wrong question was answered. The GPL is a one-way  
>> infection: non-free software cannot GPL components, but GPL code  
>> can use non-free components.
>
> Your position is one interpretation of the GPL. It is contradicted by
>  the GPL FAQ, and what the original authors of the GPL said when  
> specifically asked. I can't really say anything more, I'm just  
> relaying what I have been told.
>

My GPL library, program, module, wrapper, etc cannot be a conduit for
the GPL virus.  I can use a non-GPL library (open source or
proprietary) in my module and still license it as GPL.  This doesn't
cause the non-GPL library to then become GPL.

What I can't do is use a non-GPL library whose license is incompatible
with the GPL license and then distribute my module.  An incompatible
license is one that counteracts or conflicts with the statements of the
GPL.  I cannot distribute two differing viral licenses.

Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/
-- http://give-me-an-offer.com/

[Vivek Puri]

--- Karoly Negyesi <karoly@...> wrote:

> drupal.org does
> not host such applications, so what's the big
> deal...?


You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
violation of GPL as per this latest discussion. And
its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls do
SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
 




       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

[Cog Rusty]

On 9/6/07, Vivek Puri <crystalcube@...> wrote:

>
> --- Karoly Negyesi <karoly@...> wrote:
>
> > drupal.org does
> > not host such applications, so what's the big
> > deal...?
>
>
> You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
> http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> violation of GPL as per this latest discussion. And
> its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls do
> SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.

At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have to challenge the
conformance or the module with a particular  article of its attached
license to claim such a thing?

As a side-issue, there is also the question of "legitimate interest"
of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the requirement of
legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL either).

[Vivek Puri]

--- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:

> > You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
> > http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> > violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.
> And
> > its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls
> do
> > SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
>
> At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have
> to challenge the
> conformance or the module with a particular  article
> of its attached
> license to claim such a thing?
>
> As a side-issue, there is also the question of
> "legitimate interest"
> of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the
> requirement of
> legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL
> either).

Its not so much as question of challenging it. The
fact is that module clearly is in violation of GPL and
still hosted on Drupal. So question is whats Drupal's
policy ? Still continue to say that d.o. is fully
compliant or  d.o. doesn't care ?

If we go by your logic then everyone will just use GPL
software and release their own modules as proprietary
license under the concept of "legitimate interest".
After all everyone has "legitimate interest" to not
release their own contributions as GPL ;)





       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

[Karoly Negyesi]

> > You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
> > http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> > violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.

Yes but I questioned the sanity the whole of the discussion. To sum up:

How could be any code designed by its author to be under the GPL be in violation of the GPL?

[Vivek Puri]

> How could be any code designed by its author to be
> under the GPL be in violation of the GPL?
>

very simply by not complying to it ;)
But thats the whole discussion is about as to under
what circumstances this so called violation happens.
GPL doesn't just defines the license it also defines
the whole mumbo jumbo around interfacing.

I am not sure most people here are aware but MySQL
made their Libraries from LGPL to GPL but have given a
small exception to PHP to include MySQL libraries. So
basically if you connect a piece of software to
another , in case of GPL , both have to comply, Unless
an exception is granted.

So in essence to be able to use any bridge Drupal have
to grant exception to all such bridges. Which is not
easy unless all the contributors can be tracked and
they agree to it.




       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

[Karoly Negyesi]

----- Start Original Message -----
Sent: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 04:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vivek Puri <crystalcube@...>
To: development@...
Subject: Re: [development] Modules that integrate non-GPL PHP apps violate
        the GPL.

>
> > How could be any code designed by its author to be
> > under the GPL be in violation of the GPL?
> >
>
> very simply by not complying to it ;)

But as GPL only covers the copy and the modification of the code ... it's my code I allow you to copy, distribute and modify under GPL... I do not get it. You are saying that calling a non-GPL code as PHP function takes away my rights to license my own code as I see fit?

[Earnie]

Quoting Karoly Negyesi <karoly@...>:

> ----- Start Original Message -----
> Sent: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 04:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Vivek Puri <crystalcube@...>
> To: development@...
> Subject: Re: [development] Modules that integrate non-GPL PHP apps violate
> the GPL.
>
>>
>> > How could be any code designed by its author to be
>> > under the GPL be in violation of the GPL?
>> >
>>
>> very simply by not complying to it ;)
>
> But as GPL only covers the copy and the modification of the code ...
> it's my code I allow you to copy, distribute and modify under GPL...
> I do not get it. You are saying that calling a non-GPL code as PHP
> function takes away my rights to license my own code as I see fit?

The GPL takes away that right why can't a non-GPL license take away
that right?

Earnie

[Earnie]

Quoting Vivek Puri <crystalcube@...>:

> I am not sure most people here are aware but MySQL
> made their Libraries from LGPL to GPL but have given a
> small exception to PHP to include MySQL libraries.

So that's the reason why I need to go to MySql to get the PHP loadable
module that PHP no longer distributes!  PHP wants to be GPL free.

Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/
-- http://give-me-an-offer.com/

[Gerhard Killesreiter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vivek Puri schrieb:
> --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:
>
>>> You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at

I am sure that Karoly knows that there are such modules on drupal.org.

>>> http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
>>> violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.
>> And
>>> its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls
>> do
>>> SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
>> At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have
>> to challenge the
>> conformance or the module with a particular  article
>> of its attached
>> license to claim such a thing?
>>
>> As a side-issue, there is also the question of
>> "legitimate interest"
>> of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the
>> requirement of
>> legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL
>> either).
>
> Its not so much as question of challenging it. The
> fact is that module clearly is in violation of GPL and

It violates the GPL if one accepts the interpetation of the GPL
communicated to us by Jeff.

Given that this interpretation is from the people who distribute the GPL
is makes a lot of sense to me to stick by that interpretation.

Of course, their interpretation won't be unbiased. But by chosing the
GPL as our license we are already party anyway.

> still hosted on Drupal. So question is whats Drupal's
> policy ?

Indeed.

> Still continue to say that d.o. is fully
> compliant or  d.o. doesn't care ?

As the CVS maintainer I care very much. However, I don't want to act rashly.

> If we go by your logic then everyone will just use GPL
> software and release their own modules as proprietary
> license under the concept of "legitimate interest".
> After all everyone has "legitimate interest" to not
> release their own contributions as GPL ;)

I've never heard of a legal concept "legitimate interest" before...

Here's a Stallman quote which elucidates some points of this threat:

The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says »no« to some of the things that
people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad
thing ­ that the GPL »excludes« some proprietary software developers who
»need to be brought into the free software community.« But
we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to
enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay
out of our community. Being in our community means joining in
cooperation with us; we cannot »bring them into our community« if they
don't want to join.

        Richard Stallman


I've found it in a commented version of the GPLv2 which can be
downloaded from:

http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/Druckfassung/Die_GPL_kommentiert_und_erklaert.pdf

It is probably interesting to people participating in this thread. You
need to learn German first, though. :p
The whole PDF has 192 pages so it becomes clear that this is not exactly
 an easygoing license. ;)

Cheers,
        Gerhard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG4ACKfg6TFvELooQRAi2lAJ4tpMl39j7VBuh9VCNmLIKvz7SDAwCfT4eX
/xKuBH884Y4OWnu9vIS0BnM=
=EKQd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Cog Rusty]

On 9/6/07, Vivek Puri <crystalcube@...> wrote:

>
> --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:
>
> > > You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
> > > http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> > > violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.
> > And
> > > its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls
> > do
> > > SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
> >
> > At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have
> > to challenge the
> > conformance or the module with a particular  article
> > of its attached
> > license to claim such a thing?
> >
> > As a side-issue, there is also the question of
> > "legitimate interest"
> > of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the
> > requirement of
> > legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL
> > either).
>
> Its not so much as question of challenging it. The
> fact is that module clearly is in violation of GPL and
> still hosted on Drupal. So question is whats Drupal's
> policy ? Still continue to say that d.o. is fully
> compliant or  d.o. doesn't care ?

Isn't that begging the question? How is it in violation of GPL if it
is not show to violate some term(s) of its attached license text? By
popular vote? By an interpretation which was written and posted after
the event?

I said "now we are talking" believing that this was a chance to see
how those interpretations can be applied in practice, but not by using
more sweeping statements.


> If we go by your logic then everyone will just use GPL
> software and release their own modules as proprietary
> license under the concept of "legitimate interest".
> After all everyone has "legitimate interest" to not
> release their own contributions as GPL ;)

By "legitimate interest" I was referring to something different: Under
law usually, when you see a thief robbing someone, you can report it
to the police but you can't sue the robber. Only the victim can (or
the authorities if it is a penal offence and not just a civil one).You
don't need legitimate interest to do something. You need it to
challenge something.

Also notice that to make a point you (we) always automatically refer
to a case of stealing GPL'ed code and using it in proprietary
software, and assume it self-evident that this is the case under
discussion.

[Cog Rusty]

On 9/6/07, Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard@...> wrote:
...snip...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Vivek Puri schrieb:
> > --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:
> >
> >>> You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
>
> I am sure that Karoly knows that there are such modules on drupal.org.
>
> >>> http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> >>> violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.
> >> And
> >>> its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls
> >> do
> >>> SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
> >> At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have
> >> to challenge the
> >> conformance or the module with a particular  article
> >> of its attached
> >> license to claim such a thing?
> >>
> >> As a side-issue, there is also the question of
> >> "legitimate interest"
> >> of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the
> >> requirement of
> >> legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL
> >> either).
> >
> > Its not so much as question of challenging it. The
> > fact is that module clearly is in violation of GPL and
>
> It violates the GPL if one accepts the interpetation of the GPL
> communicated to us by Jeff.
>
> Given that this interpretation is from the people who distribute the GPL
> is makes a lot of sense to me to stick by that interpretation.

Could Jeff or someone ask them how (an whether) they would go about
challenging the legitimacy of the smf module's challenge legally? I
mean, to which point of its attached license they would try to apply
their interpretation? And then see how reasonable that sounds if
presented in a court? I am not claiming that is a "no-go". I am
claiming that it would make it clearer to ourselves what we are
talking about.


> Of course, their interpretation won't be unbiased. But by chosing the
> GPL as our license we are already party anyway.


We are also party to what the license text says. It is supposed to
give us not only obligations but some protection under the law as
well.

> > still hosted on Drupal. So question is whats Drupal's
> > policy ?
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Still continue to say that d.o. is fully
> > compliant or  d.o. doesn't care ?
>
> As the CVS maintainer I care very much. However, I don't want to act rashly.
>
> > If we go by your logic then everyone will just use GPL
> > software and release their own modules as proprietary
> > license under the concept of "legitimate interest".
> > After all everyone has "legitimate interest" to not
> > release their own contributions as GPL ;)
>
> I've never heard of a legal concept "legitimate interest" before...

In short, it means that you can't sue someone for causing damage to
your neighbor's car, only your neighbor can.

> Here's a Stallman quote which elucidates some points of this threat:
>
> The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says »no« to some of the things that
> people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad
> thing ­ that the GPL »excludes« some proprietary software developers who
> »need to be brought into the free software community.« But
> we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to
> enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay
> out of our community. Being in our community means joining in
> cooperation with us; we cannot »bring them into our community« if they
> don't want to join.
>
>         Richard Stallman
>
>
> I've found it in a commented version of the GPLv2 which can be
> downloaded from:
>
> http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/Druckfassung/Die_GPL_kommentiert_und_erklaert.pdf
>
> It is probably interesting to people participating in this thread. You
> need to learn German first, though. :p
> The whole PDF has 192 pages so it becomes clear that this is not exactly
>  an easygoing license. ;)
>
> Cheers,
>         Gerhard
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFG4ACKfg6TFvELooQRAi2lAJ4tpMl39j7VBuh9VCNmLIKvz7SDAwCfT4eX
> /xKuBH884Y4OWnu9vIS0BnM=
> =EKQd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

[Peter Wolanin]

FYi - the SMF bridge to Joomla! is no longer available because Joomla!
is interpreting the GPL in exactly the way Jeff communicated. I've
forgotten now, but this may be one reason why he went to the FSF in
the first place?

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184558.0

-Peter

On 9/6/07, Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:

> On 9/6/07, Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard@...> wrote:
> ...snip...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Vivek Puri schrieb:
> > > --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
> >
> > I am sure that Karoly knows that there are such modules on drupal.org.
> >
> > >>> http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> > >>> violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.
> > >> And
> > >>> its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls
> > >> do
> > >>> SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
> > >> At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have
> > >> to challenge the
> > >> conformance or the module with a particular  article
> > >> of its attached
> > >> license to claim such a thing?
> > >>
> > >> As a side-issue, there is also the question of
> > >> "legitimate interest"
> > >> of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the
> > >> requirement of
> > >> legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL
> > >> either).
> > >
> > > Its not so much as question of challenging it. The
> > > fact is that module clearly is in violation of GPL and
> >
> > It violates the GPL if one accepts the interpetation of the GPL
> > communicated to us by Jeff.
> >
> > Given that this interpretation is from the people who distribute the GPL
> > is makes a lot of sense to me to stick by that interpretation.
>
>
> Could Jeff or someone ask them how (an whether) they would go about
> challenging the legitimacy of the smf module's challenge legally? I
> mean, to which point of its attached license they would try to apply
> their interpretation? And then see how reasonable that sounds if
> presented in a court? I am not claiming that is a "no-go". I am
> claiming that it would make it clearer to ourselves what we are
> talking about.
>
>
> > Of course, their interpretation won't be unbiased. But by chosing the
> > GPL as our license we are already party anyway.
>
>
> We are also party to what the license text says. It is supposed to
> give us not only obligations but some protection under the law as
> well.
>
>
> > > still hosted on Drupal. So question is whats Drupal's
> > > policy ?
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > Still continue to say that d.o. is fully
> > > compliant or  d.o. doesn't care ?
> >
> > As the CVS maintainer I care very much. However, I don't want to act rashly.
> >
> > > If we go by your logic then everyone will just use GPL
> > > software and release their own modules as proprietary
> > > license under the concept of "legitimate interest".
> > > After all everyone has "legitimate interest" to not
> > > release their own contributions as GPL ;)
> >
> > I've never heard of a legal concept "legitimate interest" before...
>
>
> In short, it means that you can't sue someone for causing damage to
> your neighbor's car, only your neighbor can.
>
>
> > Here's a Stallman quote which elucidates some points of this threat:
> >
> > The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says »no« to some of the things that
> > people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad
> > thing ­ that the GPL »excludes« some proprietary software developers who
> > »need to be brought into the free software community.« But
> > we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to
> > enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay
> > out of our community. Being in our community means joining in
> > cooperation with us; we cannot »bring them into our community« if they
> > don't want to join.
> >
> >         Richard Stallman
> >
> >
> > I've found it in a commented version of the GPLv2 which can be
> > downloaded from:
> >
> > http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/Druckfassung/Die_GPL_kommentiert_und_erklaert.pdf
> >
> > It is probably interesting to people participating in this thread. You
> > need to learn German first, though. :p
> > The whole PDF has 192 pages so it becomes clear that this is not exactly
> >  an easygoing license. ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >         Gerhard
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iD8DBQFG4ACKfg6TFvELooQRAi2lAJ4tpMl39j7VBuh9VCNmLIKvz7SDAwCfT4eX
> > /xKuBH884Y4OWnu9vIS0BnM=
> > =EKQd
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>

[Gerhard Killesreiter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Wolanin schrieb:
> FYi - the SMF bridge to Joomla! is no longer available because Joomla!
> is interpreting the GPL in exactly the way Jeff communicated. I've
> forgotten now, but this may be one reason why he went to the FSF in
> the first place?
>
> http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184558.0

The situation is slightly different. In that case the bridge module
itself wasn't under GPL, something we always said wasn't ok.

Cheers,
        Gerhard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG4BYtfg6TFvELooQRAvR1AJ9+F3hXN2X2dwRV0nEDU+bB8/kycQCghM8K
1xvP64khoB8HSy4IFULEfgk=
=FmZt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Gerhard Killesreiter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gerhard Killesreiter schrieb:

> Peter Wolanin schrieb:
>> FYi - the SMF bridge to Joomla! is no longer available because Joomla!
>> is interpreting the GPL in exactly the way Jeff communicated. I've
>> forgotten now, but this may be one reason why he went to the FSF in
>> the first place?
>
>> http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184558.0
>
> The situation is slightly different. In that case the bridge module
> itself wasn't under GPL, something we always said wasn't ok.

However, the exchange the SMF guys had with the FSF is also applicable
to our situation:

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184557

Cheers,
        Gerhard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG4Bhdfg6TFvELooQRAhp8AKCQ+ppdrLOufC0Ep2+wyalN5w5fOQCdHuvS
76vhk68iKN9JglVyjaQzQ/E=
=q09O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Cog Rusty]

On 9/6/07, Peter Wolanin <pwolanin@...> wrote:
> FYi - the SMF bridge to Joomla! is no longer available because Joomla!
> is interpreting the GPL in exactly the way Jeff communicated. I've
> forgotten now, but this may be one reason why he went to the FSF in
> the first place?
>
> http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184558.0
>
> -Peter


Was the Joomla SMF bridge licensed under GPL in the first place?
Reading the announcement it seems it was not.

[Vivek Puri]

--- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:
>
>
> Was the Joomla SMF bridge licensed under GPL in the
> first place?
> Reading the announcement it seems it was not.
>

What will licensing bridge under GPL achieve. Wouldn't
that pass the buck to bridge ? If bridge is licensed
under GPL then  connecting bridge (GPL) with SMF (
non-GPL) is same situation whats the difference ?

in any case another thread also highlights the
discussion between SMF and FSF
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184557.0

this very questioned has been asked and answered by
FSF

from that thread
>
>> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could
the second script be
>> then legally licensed under a non-compatible
license?

>No.

 


       
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

[mark burdett-3]

Well it's not even as nice as the rms quote, since we also have
barriers to integrate with non-proprietary FLOSS, from AGPL to GPL 3.
And then there's all the PEAR libraries which use PHP license.

--mark

On 9/6/07, Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard@...> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Vivek Puri schrieb:
> > --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:
> >
> >>> You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
>
> I am sure that Karoly knows that there are such modules on drupal.org.
>
> >>> http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> >>> violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.
> >> And
> >>> its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls
> >> do
> >>> SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
> >> At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have
> >> to challenge the
> >> conformance or the module with a particular  article
> >> of its attached
> >> license to claim such a thing?
> >>
> >> As a side-issue, there is also the question of
> >> "legitimate interest"
> >> of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the
> >> requirement of
> >> legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL
> >> either).
> >
> > Its not so much as question of challenging it. The
> > fact is that module clearly is in violation of GPL and
>
> It violates the GPL if one accepts the interpetation of the GPL
> communicated to us by Jeff.
>
> Given that this interpretation is from the people who distribute the GPL
> is makes a lot of sense to me to stick by that interpretation.
>
> Of course, their interpretation won't be unbiased. But by chosing the
> GPL as our license we are already party anyway.
>
> > still hosted on Drupal. So question is whats Drupal's
> > policy ?
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Still continue to say that d.o. is fully
> > compliant or  d.o. doesn't care ?
>
> As the CVS maintainer I care very much. However, I don't want to act rashly.
>
> > If we go by your logic then everyone will just use GPL
> > software and release their own modules as proprietary
> > license under the concept of "legitimate interest".
> > After all everyone has "legitimate interest" to not
> > release their own contributions as GPL ;)
>
> I've never heard of a legal concept "legitimate interest" before...
>
> Here's a Stallman quote which elucidates some points of this threat:
>
> The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says »no« to some of the things that
> people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad
> thing ­ that the GPL »excludes« some proprietary software developers who
> »need to be brought into the free software community.« But
> we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to
> enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay
> out of our community. Being in our community means joining in
> cooperation with us; we cannot »bring them into our community« if they
> don't want to join.
>
>         Richard Stallman
>
>
> I've found it in a commented version of the GPLv2 which can be
> downloaded from:
>
> http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/Druckfassung/Die_GPL_kommentiert_und_erklaert.pdf
>
> It is probably interesting to people participating in this thread. You
> need to learn German first, though. :p
> The whole PDF has 192 pages so it becomes clear that this is not exactly
>  an easygoing license. ;)
>
> Cheers,
>         Gerhard
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFG4ACKfg6TFvELooQRAi2lAJ4tpMl39j7VBuh9VCNmLIKvz7SDAwCfT4eX
> /xKuBH884Y4OWnu9vIS0BnM=
> =EKQd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

[Cog Rusty]

On 9/6/07, Vivek Puri <crystalcube@...> wrote:

>
> --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Was the Joomla SMF bridge licensed under GPL in the
> > first place?
> > Reading the announcement it seems it was not.
> >
>
> What will licensing bridge under GPL achieve. Wouldn't
> that pass the buck to bridge ? If bridge is licensed
> under GPL then  connecting bridge (GPL) with SMF (
> non-GPL) is same situation whats the difference ?

No difference at all if we find that the GPL license text attached to
a bridge module invalidates itself. But does it, and according to
which point of the license text? That is my question.

Of course it is always up to d.o. to interpret the license and kick
out some module, which module then might be distributed somewhere else
with the attached GPL license again.

In that case, d.o. might have an interest to go to court (because it
is a drupal module), but then d.o. would have to point out something
in the license text, and possibly argue using the "system"
interpretation.

> in any case another thread also highlights the
> discussion between SMF and FSF
> http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184557.0
>
> this very questioned has been asked and answered by
> FSF
>
> from that thread
> >
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could
> the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible
> license?
>
> >No.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/
>