On 9/6/07, Vivek Puri <crystalcube@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty@gmail.com> wrote:
Was the Joomla SMF bridge licensed under GPL in the first place? Reading the announcement it seems it was not.
What will licensing bridge under GPL achieve. Wouldn't that pass the buck to bridge ? If bridge is licensed under GPL then connecting bridge (GPL) with SMF ( non-GPL) is same situation whats the difference ?
No difference at all if we find that the GPL license text attached to a bridge module invalidates itself. But does it, and according to which point of the license text? That is my question. Of course it is always up to d.o. to interpret the license and kick out some module, which module then might be distributed somewhere else with the attached GPL license again. In that case, d.o. might have an interest to go to court (because it is a drupal module), but then d.o. would have to point out something in the license text, and possibly argue using the "system" interpretation.
in any case another thread also highlights the discussion between SMF and FSF http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=184557.0
this very questioned has been asked and answered by FSF
from that thread
If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could
the second script be
then legally licensed under a non-compatible license?
No.
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/