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