[consulting] Fwd: [development] Modules that integrate non-GPL PHP apps violate the GPL.

[Liam McDermott]

Karoly Negyesi wrote:

> Before going any further, I want to make clear that I'm not  
> expressing approval or disapproval of this: I'm just relaying the  
> conclusions that were reached after several days of discussion and  
> questioning with the FSF.
Quite, now annoyingly I'm going to ask you some questions and probably 
repeat what you've already asked the FSF. My apologies in advance for 
this. :)

> Why do these modules violate the GPL?
> 
> 1) Under the FSF's accepted interpretation of the GPL, if a module is  
> integrating Drupal and another PHP script, by calling one's APIs when  
> triggered by the other for example, its purpose is to make a single  
> unit of software out of those parts.
Then how is any GPL'd software allowed to run on Microsoft Windows? How 
are Opera, Adobe Flash or Java allowed to run on GNU/Linux?

> 2) If multiple programs are operating together and functioning as one  
> unit, all the pieces must be GPL'd.
I find this hard to believe. Take the vBulletin bridge for example, you 
want to build a site that uses Drupal for the CMS and vBulletin for the 
message board. Drupal distribute the CMS and the vBulletin bridge, both 
available under the GPL, this integrates with vBulletin on the Web server.

Since the GPL is a copyright license it only comes into effect when 
software is distributed. The end user is allowed to mix whatever license 
combinations they want. That is why I am running GNU/Linux with Opera as 
my browser, Java and Flash installed, and some proprietary Windows 
software running under Wine.

If you mean that it's technically a breach of the GPL to _provide a 
service_ integrating software with incompatible licenses then I can see 
that you may have a point. Although if accused of breaching the GPL in 
this manner a good answer could be: 'the customer downloaded and 
installed that piece of proprietary software, guvn'r.'

I don't believe the Drupal maintainers have done anything wrong, they've 
only distributed GPL'd software. I can't imagine it would do the FSF's 
public image any good to go after individual developers for something so 
trivial either. Most people would jump to BSD licenses faster than you 
can say: 'Richard Stallman!'

This seems to be the same problem as graphics card vendors and their 
binary drivers. They provide a binary (cross-platform) blob with some 
GPL'd 'glue' software between the blob and the Linux kernel. This has 
been argued--on both sides--but never really tested. As you pointed out, 
not taking any action will probably cause no problems.

By the way: I am not a lawyer. I have no experience with law, only a 
vague understanding of the GPL. Am asking these questions as you 
probably have the answers already and if not you can query the FSF again 
(or provide us with an e-mail address).

Thanks for the information! :)

Kind Regards,
Liam McDermott.