When it comes to "lawyering up" How would one even go about suing someone who distributed a module that was designed to output XML specifically for a non-GPL'ed Flash image gallery test the "single system" definition? Adding a disclaimer to modules is only going to make problematic situation worse. If you take even a quick look at the Lulabot's "top 40" modules, you'll find third party code in several of them (it's easy to spot because most developers are nice enough to leave the code's credits in the module)... 40. XML SiteMap - http://drupal.org/project/gsitemap - includes gss.xml (12K) found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/gstoolbox 39. Location - http://drupal.org/project/location - includes earth.inc (6K) by Ka-Ping Yee http://www.zjlfj.gov.cn/uploadimg/2007416/up1179247864278.php?action=vie...<http://www.zjlfj.gov.cn/uploadimg/2007416/up1179247864278.php?action=view&file=%2Fweb%2Fwebsite%2Fsenhemm%2Fmodules%2Flocation%2Fearth.inc> 36. Porter Stemmer - http://drupal.org/project/porterstemmer - includes the PHP implementation of Porter Stemmer by Richard Heyes available at http://www.tartarus.org/martin/PorterStemmer/php.txt 16. Audio - http://drupal.org/project/audio - includes XSPF Flash player (139K) found at http://musicplayer.sourceforge.net/ There is also Jeff Robinson's JQuery Update that still includes versions of jquery.js 1.1.2 and compat.1.0.js. Drupal's CVS maintainers don't just discourage third party code that isn't GPL compliant, they expressly forbid it regardless of license, reasons given for including it, or how nicely you ask. If including third party code was only a licensing issue, TinyMCE would be much easy to install and configure. ___ *Kevin Reynen* Integrated Media Coordinator Reynolds School of Journalism and Advanced Media Research University of Nevada, Reno On 9/7/07, ttw+drupal@cobbled.net <ttw+drupal@cobbled.net> wrote:
On 06.09-09:18, Thomas Barregren wrote: [ ... ]
Violating the very same license we require other to conform to definitely diminishes our own cause. But I cannot see how that can be used to justify, morally or legally, further violation. That would be to say: "Since you stole that bike, it is okay for me to steel it from you." Don't you agree?
you are of course, precisely correct but where this becomes a problem is that you _can_ run into discrimination laws, whereby, something is wholesale violated and suddenly it's an with only one party. i don't think this is a real consideration here.