On 9/6/07, Vivek Puri <crystalcube@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@gmail.com> 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.