[development] MIT licensed widgets in d.o GPL repo?
gerhard at killesreiter.de
Fri Oct 20 09:09:36 UTC 2006
Thomas Barregren wrote:
> Gerhard Killesreiter skrev:
>> Chris Johnson wrote:
>>> I believe that the policy on anything in the drupal.org repository is
>>> that it must be GPL licensed. Even something with a more liberal
>>> license, such as an MIT-licensed widget, would not be allowed.
>>> Is that correct?
>> And then no again. If you, as a contributor, re-release the MIT
>> licensed stuff under GPL you can commit it. I believe that such a
>> re-release is possible with certain MIT type licenses.
>> If you choose this route, you shoudl probably document it rather well.
>> In general, we'd prefer you'd not do it, I guess.
> From a license point of view, there is no problem to sublicense MIT
> licensed software under GPL. As I said in an answer to Chris Johnson,
> GPL and MIT are compatible, which means that it is not a violation of
> GPL to use MIT source code or vice versa.
I didn't say there would be a problem.
> From a policy point of view, the situation is a little bit more unclear
> to me.When you apply for a CVS account, you must certify to "only commit
> code that is licensed under terms of the GNU public license." The MIT
> licensed code you commit isn't under GPL, so this could be an offence
> against your own certification. But as soon as the code is commited, you
> have created a "derivative work" which is under GPL; and hence the
> possible offence is removed. Since GPL is about protecting your freedom,
> and since GPL is compatible with the MIT license, I suppose it is okay
> to check in MIT licensed and other GPL compatible code. IMHO it should
> at least be so.
That is what I was trying to say. However, I called to document this.
E.g. you should put something in a README file that tells people that
the code was originally under MIT license and you (the contributor)
re-license it under the GPL.
> I suggest that Drupal.org has a clear policy document stating that it is
> allowed to check in any code that can be distributed under GPL. That
> would take away much of the unclear points.
Another important guideline other than "no non-GPL code" in CVS is "no
third party code" in CVS. So if you find some code somewhere (say a
your module the proper procedure would be to point out in the README
that people have to go download said library there and there.
A possible exception would be that you need to modify the Library in
some way to work with Drupal. But then you are creating a derivative
work anyway and - if the original license allows this - can license that
under GPL and put it into CVS.
More information about the development