Thomas Barregren wrote:
Wrong. You are allowed to add ny terms and condition you which as long as long as you don't impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted in GPL. See paragraph 6 of GPL v2 (which is used by Drupal). In fact, FSF/GNU tells you to add such notice to allow use of non-GPL libraryies. Read the FAQ:
The license itself says, "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." Paragraph 6 says nothing about producing a modified version of the GPL. MySQL's exception is rendered as a separate exception document, not a modification of the GPL. This distinction is important because people redistributing the code aren't obligated to allow the exceptions granted by the original licensor. So, I stand by my statement that, "Direct GPL variants are only allowed with approval of the FSF." See the AGPL for an example of an approved variant.
I'm not sure that's a problem. The GPL only affects redistribution, not what a person does on his or her own computer. Just ensure the forbidden integration isn't distributed. (If I'm wrong here, I'd like to know.)
Wrong. If a module depends on a software with a license not compatible with GPL, then that module can't be distributed under GPL.
If you're going to call someone "wrong," you had better be right: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs That FAQ item gives instructions for releasing something under the GPL that links to non-free libraries. I said, "The GPL only affects redistribution" because the original distributor has the right to include any exceptions in a supplement to the license. Re-distributors cannot add such an exception. However, I also said, "Just ensure the forbidden integration isn't distributed" because even the owner of the GPL software doesn't have the right to redistribute software without permission.
As long as Drupal core is GPL-clean, I think this is acceptable. I don't think anyone but a lawyer would be qualified to do the policing, anyway
Isn't that to live by double standard? Why is it okay to violate the GPL when it comes to modules, but not when it comes to the core itself?
I didn't say it was OK. I said it wasn't worth policing contributed modules.