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

[mark burdett]

Well it's not even as nice as the rms quote, since we also have
barriers to integrate with non-proprietary FLOSS, from AGPL to GPL 3.
And then there's all the PEAR libraries which use PHP license.

--mark

On 9/6/07, Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard at killesreiter.de> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Vivek Puri schrieb:
> > --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> You cant be more wrong ;) take a look at
>
> I am sure that Karoly knows that there are such modules on drupal.org.
>
> >>> http://drupal.org/project/smfforum , this is in
> >>> violation of GPL as per this latest discussion.
> >> And
> >>> its hosted on drupal. The module make direct calls
> >> do
> >>> SMF API ( a non-GPL compliant ) product.
> >> At last! Now we are talking. Wouldn't someone have
> >> to challenge the
> >> conformance or the module with a particular  article
> >> of its attached
> >> license to claim such a thing?
> >>
> >> As a side-issue, there is also the question of
> >> "legitimate interest"
> >> of the one who does challenge it. Doesn't the
> >> requirement of
> >> legitimate interest exist in most countries? (IANAL
> >> either).
> >
> > Its not so much as question of challenging it. The
> > fact is that module clearly is in violation of GPL and
>
> It violates the GPL if one accepts the interpetation of the GPL
> communicated to us by Jeff.
>
> Given that this interpretation is from the people who distribute the GPL
> is makes a lot of sense to me to stick by that interpretation.
>
> Of course, their interpretation won't be unbiased. But by chosing the
> GPL as our license we are already party anyway.
>
> > still hosted on Drupal. So question is whats Drupal's
> > policy ?
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Still continue to say that d.o. is fully
> > compliant or  d.o. doesn't care ?
>
> As the CVS maintainer I care very much. However, I don't want to act rashly.
>
> > If we go by your logic then everyone will just use GPL
> > software and release their own modules as proprietary
> > license under the concept of "legitimate interest".
> > After all everyone has "legitimate interest" to not
> > release their own contributions as GPL ;)
>
> I've never heard of a legal concept "legitimate interest" before...
>
> Here's a Stallman quote which elucidates some points of this threat:
>
> The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says »no« to some of the things that
> people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad
> thing ­ that the GPL »excludes« some proprietary software developers who
> »need to be brought into the free software community.« But
> we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to
> enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay
> out of our community. Being in our community means joining in
> cooperation with us; we cannot »bring them into our community« if they
> don't want to join.
>
>         Richard Stallman
>
>
> I've found it in a commented version of the GPLv2 which can be
> downloaded from:
>
> http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/Druckfassung/Die_GPL_kommentiert_und_erklaert.pdf
>
> It is probably interesting to people participating in this thread. You
> need to learn German first, though. :p
> The whole PDF has 192 pages so it becomes clear that this is not exactly
>  an easygoing license. ;)
>
> Cheers,
>         Gerhard
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFG4ACKfg6TFvELooQRAi2lAJ4tpMl39j7VBuh9VCNmLIKvz7SDAwCfT4eX
> /xKuBH884Y4OWnu9vIS0BnM=
> =EKQd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>