The OSI Artist License compatibility with GPL
Does anyone see any reason why something licensed with the OSI Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php) can't be distributed in a GPL'd Drupal module? After perusing the text of the license briefly, I'm not seeing anything that would prevent it - but I may also need to read further in the recent GPL-compatibility thread (which is ginormous, by the way!). Thanks, Jeff
Quoting Jeff Beeman <doogieb@gmail.com>:
Does anyone see any reason why something licensed with the OSI Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php) can't be distributed in a GPL'd Drupal module?
After perusing the text of the license briefly, I'm not seeing anything that would prevent it - but I may also need to read further in the recent GPL-compatibility thread (which is ginormous, by the way!).
Look here http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ for the answer. Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/ -- http://give-me-an-offer.com/
Very handy page. The code I'd like to include looks like it's just "Artistic License," not "Artistic License 2.0" - so I'll need to get in touch with the authors. Thanks very much for the reply and link. Jeff On 9/9/07, Earnie Boyd <earnie@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Quoting Jeff Beeman <doogieb@gmail.com>:
Does anyone see any reason why something licensed with the OSI Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php) can't be distributed in a GPL'd Drupal module?
After perusing the text of the license briefly, I'm not seeing anything that would prevent it - but I may also need to read further in the recent GPL-compatibility thread (which is ginormous, by the way!).
Look here http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ for the answer.
Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/ -- http://give-me-an-offer.com/
Jeff Beeman skrev:
Very handy page. The code I'd like to include looks like it's just "Artistic License," not "Artistic License 2.0" - so I'll need to get in touch with the authors. Thanks very much for the reply and link.
See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense. Please notice that the GPL-Compatible list at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ is for GPL v3. Drupal is using GPL v2, which is compatible with many fewer licenses than v3. Best regards, Thomas
On 9/9/07, Jeff Beeman <doogieb@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone see any reason why something licensed with the OSI Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php) can't be distributed in a GPL'd Drupal module?
See also http://drupal.org/node/66113 "Why drupal.org doesn't host GPL-"compatible" code" Regards, Greg -- Greg Knaddison Denver, CO | http://knaddison.com World Spanish Tour | http://wanderlusting.org/user/greg
Greg Knaddison - GVS wrote:
On 9/9/07, Jeff Beeman <doogieb@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone see any reason why something licensed with the OSI Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php) can't be distributed in a GPL'd Drupal module?
See also http://drupal.org/node/66113
"Why drupal.org doesn't host GPL-"compatible" code"
I believe that applies to code, not art.
Earl Miles skrev:
Greg Knaddison - GVS wrote:
On 9/9/07, Jeff Beeman <doogieb@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone see any reason why something licensed with the OSI Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php) can't be distributed in a GPL'd Drupal module?
See also http://drupal.org/node/66113
"Why drupal.org doesn't host GPL-"compatible" code"
I believe that applies to code, not art.
The Artistic License was written by Larry Wall and is used by Perl and CPAN. The "art" referenced in the license name is probably a homage to Donald Knuth. Best regards, Thomas
I guess I should clear things up by actually stating what I'd like to include. I wrote a module that is a simple wrapper for the Incutio XML-RPC Library (http://scripts.incutio.com/xmlrpc/), which is code. It's odd to me that it's licensed under the Artistic License, and in lieu of not hearing back from the author(s), I've decided to release it in the style of TinyMCE, telling users to go grab the library themselves. Jeff On 9/10/07, Earl Miles <merlin@logrus.com> wrote:
Greg Knaddison - GVS wrote:
On 9/9/07, Jeff Beeman <doogieb@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone see any reason why something licensed with the OSI Artistic License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php) can't be distributed in a GPL'd Drupal module?
See also http://drupal.org/node/66113
"Why drupal.org doesn't host GPL-"compatible" code"
I believe that applies to code, not art.
Jeff Beeman skrev:
I guess I should clear things up by actually stating what I'd like to include. I wrote a module that is a simple wrapper for the Incutio XML-RPC Library (http://scripts.incutio.com/xmlrpc/ <http://scripts.incutio.com/xmlrpc/>), which is code. It's odd to me that it's licensed under the Artistic License, and in lieu of not hearing back from the author(s), I've decided to release it in the style of TinyMCE, telling users to go grab the library themselves.
What you are wondering can be formulated as two questions. The first question is whether it is allowed to check non-GPL libraries into Drupal's CVS. As Greg Knaddison pointed out, the policy of Drupal.org is to discourage third party libraries in general, and non-GPL libraies in particular. See http://drupal.org/node/66113 Therefore, I think you are doing the right thing by telling people to go grab the library themselves. The second question is whether it is allowed for a Drupal module to link to a library under The Artistic License. Because Drupal has GPL, your module has to be available for use under the GPL as well. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense Does that prevent your module to use a library under The Artistic License? If your module is a derived work of the library, you have problem. According to FSF/GNU, the Artistic License is not compatible with GPL according to FSF/GNU. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense But if your module is not a derived work of the library, you are all clear. So the second question boils down to whether your module is derived work of the Incutio XML-RPC Library or not. Since the Incutio XML-RPC Library obviously is *designed* and *intended* to be used as a library, I would have said that your module is not a derivate work of the library *IF* - and that is the catch - if your module did something else than just being a "simple wrapper". But as a simple wrapper around the Incutio XML-RPC Library, your module must most likely be characterized as a derived work of the library. And as a consequence, it cannot be legally distributed. Sorry. :-( The best you can do is to write to the copyright holder of the Incutio XML-RPC Library and ask if the library can be dual licensed under GPL to you. The Artistic License and GPL are very similar in intent, so that should not be a big issue. In fact, that is exactly how it is done for Perl, for which the Artistic License once were written. Finally, there is of course a chance that my interpretation of the situation is completely wrong. I am after all not a lawyer, but only a layman. So everything I have said should be taken with a grain of salt. Best regards, Thomas
Yeah, good point... I was wondering this myself as I was reading through the gigantic GPL/non-GPL apps thread today. I had already sent an email to the authors to see if they would be interested in dual licensing the source seeing as, like you said, the intent of the license is very similar. The module is most definitely just a wrapper around the library, making it easier for any Drupal module to utilize the IXR library but doing nothing else. Thanks for the input, Jeff On 9/10/07, Thomas Barregren <thomas@webbredaktoren.se> wrote:
Jeff Beeman skrev:
I guess I should clear things up by actually stating what I'd like to include. I wrote a module that is a simple wrapper for the Incutio XML-RPC Library (http://scripts.incutio.com/xmlrpc/ <http://scripts.incutio.com/xmlrpc/>), which is code. It's odd to me that it's licensed under the Artistic License, and in lieu of not hearing back from the author(s), I've decided to release it in the style of TinyMCE, telling users to go grab the library themselves.
What you are wondering can be formulated as two questions.
The first question is whether it is allowed to check non-GPL libraries into Drupal's CVS. As Greg Knaddison pointed out, the policy of Drupal.org is to discourage third party libraries in general, and non-GPL libraies in particular. See
Therefore, I think you are doing the right thing by telling people to go grab the library themselves.
The second question is whether it is allowed for a Drupal module to link to a library under The Artistic License. Because Drupal has GPL, your module has to be available for use under the GPL as well. See
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
Does that prevent your module to use a library under The Artistic License? If your module is a derived work of the library, you have problem. According to FSF/GNU, the Artistic License is not compatible with GPL according to FSF/GNU. See
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense
But if your module is not a derived work of the library, you are all clear. So the second question boils down to whether your module is derived work of the Incutio XML-RPC Library or not.
Since the Incutio XML-RPC Library obviously is *designed* and *intended* to be used as a library, I would have said that your module is not a derivate work of the library *IF* - and that is the catch - if your module did something else than just being a "simple wrapper". But as a simple wrapper around the Incutio XML-RPC Library, your module must most likely be characterized as a derived work of the library. And as a consequence, it cannot be legally distributed. Sorry. :-(
The best you can do is to write to the copyright holder of the Incutio XML-RPC Library and ask if the library can be dual licensed under GPL to you. The Artistic License and GPL are very similar in intent, so that should not be a big issue. In fact, that is exactly how it is done for Perl, for which the Artistic License once were written.
Finally, there is of course a chance that my interpretation of the situation is completely wrong. I am after all not a lawyer, but only a layman. So everything I have said should be taken with a grain of salt.
Best regards, Thomas
participants (5)
-
Earl Miles -
Earnie Boyd -
Greg Knaddison - GVS -
Jeff Beeman -
Thomas Barregren