[development] Modules that integrate non-GPL PHP apps violate the GPL.
cog.rusty at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 17:21:42 UTC 2007
On 9/6/07, Vivek Puri <crystalcube at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Cog Rusty <cog.rusty at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Was the Joomla SMF bridge licensed under GPL in the
> > first place?
> > Reading the announcement it seems it was not.
> What will licensing bridge under GPL achieve. Wouldn't
> that pass the buck to bridge ? If bridge is licensed
> under GPL then connecting bridge (GPL) with SMF (
> non-GPL) is same situation whats the difference ?
No difference at all if we find that the GPL license text attached to
a bridge module invalidates itself. But does it, and according to
which point of the license text? That is my question.
Of course it is always up to d.o. to interpret the license and kick
out some module, which module then might be distributed somewhere else
with the attached GPL license again.
In that case, d.o. might have an interest to go to court (because it
is a drupal module), but then d.o. would have to point out something
in the license text, and possibly argue using the "system"
> in any case another thread also highlights the
> discussion between SMF and FSF
> this very questioned has been asked and answered by
> from that thread
> >> If the glue does have to be GPL (or LGPL), could
> the second script be
> >> then legally licensed under a non-compatible
> ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
More information about the development