On 02.09-15:47, Jeff Eaton wrote: [ ... ]
As such, if they do not share compatible licenses, they can't be distributed together. And if one component is clearly designed to work *only in the presence of the other component* it is an implicit violation of the GPL. (According to the FSF).
thank you for finally putting this clearly. i am not a lawyer but i concur. what still confuses me, however, is that i recall a law suit with one of the larger software companies about 10 years ago where they sued a smaller company for reverse engineering their code to write compatible software. the case was lost (as i recall) on the basis that once you had purchased something you were entitled to use it to access your data (which you still had ownership over) in whatever manner you chose (including reverse engineering and interfacing with those components to better access your information). my understanding of the gpl is that it was created precisely in response to this sort of corporate behaviour. thus it appears to me contradictory to suggest that i cannot interface with free software (which is based upon shared ownership) unless i also make my software free. this appears to be the goal of some GPL proponents. and i don't believe possible under law (at least the majority of EU law). hence my earlier assersion that using drupal hooks in any software is not illegal or problematic, nor is distributing that software (unless you also distribute drupal). i re-iterate that i agree about the distribution of free software and libraries as a reasonable incentive toward free software and as a reasonable barrier to wholesale consumption of free software into commercial products. i disagree that we can prevent someone from communicating with free software on the basis of copyright and think this directly contradictory to the notion of freedom that we wish to preserve and propogate.