Since the FSF does not hold the copyright for Drupal, all that matters is what the GPL actually says. To quote, "The FSF folks, when I asked about this, basically said that it was probably violating the spirit of the GPL but not the letter." 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. To quote again: "While the GPL only covers distribution, they consider it a GPL violation to *distribute software that is intended to be used in violation of the GPL*. In other words, distributing a proprietary commercial piece of software that relies on GPL libraries, and telling people, 'We can't put X into our program, but you can to make it work...' is creating a GPL- derived program just as much as rolling the GPL'd libraries in and then distributing." There is a possibility that a third-party app may have a similarly viral license that is incompatible with the GPL. In that case, it would not be legal to distribute a module that makes use of the app. On Sep 3, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Jeff Eaton wrote:
On Sep 3, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Darren Oh wrote:
Based on the evidence presented in this discussion, it would not be against either the spirit or the letter of the GPL for a developer to distribute a module that integrates an existing third- party app that does not use Drupal and to which the developer does not own the rights.
This is exactly the opposite of what the FSF said when I asked them that question directly.
--Jeff