Bryan Ruby skrev:
The issue though comes down to whether Drupal.org has a vested interest in protecting its license and ultimately the community's own software. In many countries, the history of how an organization protects its copyright, trademarks, licenses, and other intellectual property is significant in determining who has ultimate ownership. If Drupal.org allows itself to distribute modules that are known to contain code that is not compatible (subject to debate I know) with the GPL license then in practice Drupal.org is not enforcing it's own license. Down the road a company could redistribute modified version of Drupal claiming and claim they are under no obligation to "give back" to the community due to Drupal.org's own historical lack of enforcing the GPL. At least that's how I interpret in a non-lawyer way the main concern if Drupal.org continues the way it goes it how it handles contributed modules.
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? Best regards, Thomas