[development] Drupal's CVS policies... including 'foriegn' codein TinyMCE module?

Gerhard Killesreiter gerhard at killesreiter.de
Fri May 25 13:20:55 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA1

Jeff Robbins schrieb:
> What exactly does "foreign code" mean?!? If we write it from scratch,

Everything that is not a theme, a theme-engine, or a module (or an .inc
file depending on a module).

> it's not foreign, right? What if we copy some of the code from another
> GPL project?

If you just copy a PHP function from some other project, this is not a
problem, I think. If you start moving more code into our repository just
for "convenience" of your users (ie because you want it to be packaged)
then I'd consider that abuse.

> What if we only slightly modify another GPL project,
> perhaps just enough to make it work with Drupal? Well then it can't be
> downloaded from the original source. Are you telling me that this can't
> be included in the contrib repository?

I haven't seen such a modification yet.

> This sort of modification is the
> entire spirit of the GPL! It's about freedom and growth. By not allowing
> it into the repository, we are actually diverging from the spirit of the
> GPL.

See above.

> How modified does a project need to be in order to be considered
> "native" Drupal code? I would submit that it DOES NOT need to be
> modified at all in order to be considered Drupal code.

Well, I don't share that point of view.

> In the case of
> Drupal 5's JQuery, Drupal includes JQuery version 1.0.3 which is now
> fully deprecated in the JQuery community.


> Many of the JQuery plug-in
> maintainers do not continue to distribute plug-ins that function with
> 1.0.x and so there is no way to link to these plugins and ask users to
> download them elsewhere. So in the form of the old versions of these
> plugins, we have unmodified code, that for all intents and purposes,
> only works with Drupal and can only be found in the Drupal code repository.

Have you seen me complaining about this? I doubt it.

If GPLed code cannot be downloaded elsewhere, then of course you can
include it in the repo.

> We have a great resource with the Drupal CVS repository. I think that we
> should be as accepting as possible in order to foster creativity and
> growth. The GPL and Source Forge both provide examples as to the spirit
> of this openness. I think we should take notes. The larger that Drupal
> becomes, the more "gray area" code will emerge. I believe the rules for
> code inclusion should be very very simple: All code must be GPLed.

If you have a look at http://drupal.org/user/227 you'll see that I have
534 commits to the fckeditor project listed. This is from when I removed
all these 534 files that fckeditor apparently shipped with (nowadays I'd
simple edit the repository directly). Wouldn't you agree that having all
there 534 files in our cvs is a bad idea?

> Don't get me wrong, I would be ALL FOR allowing LGPLed code into the
> repository, but I also understand that the line needs to be drawn
> somewhere. But I think when people talk about *not* allowing
> at-one-time-external GPLed code into the Drupal repository, they're
> simply on crack.

Think what you want, I've explained the rules of the game.

This is my last reply in this already too long thread.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the development mailing list