On Sep 4, 2007, at 1:26 PM, David Strauss wrote:
You have to agree to the GPL if you (re)distribute GPLed works -- but not if you only download them, use them, or install them. If you download a GPL library and develop proprietary code that uses the library, you have not been forced to accept the GPL. For this reason, I think it's ridiculous when GPLed programs ask me to "accept" the GPL on installation.
The GPL is quite clear about this:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Moreover:
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.
Now, if the GPL required that you accept it to *use* code, it might be a different matter because you would be agreeing to the infection clause in the library's license. But this infection clause seems to go well beyond what normal copyright would consider a derivative work.
I would love to have someone clear up any errors in my interpretation. While I love the FSF, they have a vested interest in presenting the GPL as viral as possible. So, I don't consider their FAQ to be a reliable, unbiased source.
The argument being made is that distributing a module that allows Drupal to use separately distributed third-party code would make the third-party code a modification of Drupal (and therefore illegal if the module author cannot also release the third-party code under the GPL). If that is really what the FSF is claiming, I too would question the reliability of their interpretation.