[development] Modules that integrate non-GPL PHP apps violate the GPL.
laura at pingv.com
Fri Sep 7 15:14:52 UTC 2007
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Thomas Barregren wrote:
> Assume you write a module for Drupal. Any meaningful module to
> Drupal implements at least one hook. That alone makes the module a
> derived work of Drupal.
I wonder whether that in fact is true. By this logic, if you write an
application that interfaces with Word, then Microsoft owns it as a
derivative of their product. Is that how copyright works? Every time
two different applications touch, we have litigation as to who has
the most cooties?
If someone pulls on a door handle, does he become a derivative of the
door? Some things are designed to be utilized by other systems. APIs
exist in large part to allow different systems to interface with each
other. To claim that not only must a bridge module (to use the
example we've been tossing about) be GPL but anything it touches must
be GPL as well seems to be a rather far-reaching legal claim ... or
tragically self-isolating interpretation for policy.
Can GPL exist only in isolation from all other systems? Does mere
communication or interaction imply derivation? That's what the RIAA
and MPAA claim in their dragnet lawsuits, pre-litigation settlement
demands and things like the Sony Rootkit. What next? A GPL rootkit?
I wonder how Lawrence Lessig would interpret GPL.
More information about the development