On 10/09/2007, J-P Stacey <jp.stacey@torchbox.com> wrote:
> My own rather basic reading of the law is that, as long as GPL and non-GPLed
> software types are not bundled together, then you're "more or less OK". You
> can infer my legal credentials from the fact that I use such obscure
> terminology. But this would mean that you can link your non-GPL application
> dynamically to GPL libraries, but you can't compile them in statically; you
> can develop the TinyMCE bridge, but the consumer of the software has to
> fetch TinyMCE separately.

No the reason TinyMCE isn't bundled with its bridge module isn't
because of incompatible licenses but Drupal policies on only allowing
GPL code in CVS.

TinyMCE has a GPL compatible license (LGPL), so there is nothing wrong
license wise with bundling up TinyMCE with a Drupal module and
distributing it from your own server as a combined work under the GPL.
The same is true with any other code with a GPL compatible license.

So although distributing a SMF bridge module (which sparked this
debate) appears to violate the GPL, distributing the TinyMCE bridge
module wouldn't.

--
Cheers
Anton