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

[Kevin Reynen]

When it comes to "lawyering up" How would one even go about suing someone
who distributed a module that was designed to output XML specifically for a
non-GPL'ed Flash image gallery test the "single system" definition?

Adding a disclaimer to modules is only going to make problematic situation
worse.

If you take even a quick look at the Lulabot's "top 40" modules, you'll find
third party code in several of them (it's easy to spot because most
developers are nice enough to leave the code's credits in the module)...

40. XML SiteMap - http://drupal.org/project/gsitemap
- includes gss.xml (12K) found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/gstoolbox

39. Location - http://drupal.org/project/location
- includes earth.inc (6K) by Ka-Ping Yee
http://www.zjlfj.gov.cn/uploadimg/2007416/up1179247864278.php?action=vie...<http://www.zjlfj.gov.cn/uploadimg/2007416/up1179247864278.php?action=view&file=%2Fweb%2Fwebsite%2Fsenhemm%2Fmodules%2Flocation%2Fearth.inc>

36. Porter Stemmer - http://drupal.org/project/porterstemmer
- includes the PHP implementation of Porter Stemmer by Richard Heyes
available at http://www.tartarus.org/martin/PorterStemmer/php.txt

16. Audio - http://drupal.org/project/audio
- includes XSPF Flash player (139K) found at
http://musicplayer.sourceforge.net/

There is also Jeff Robinson's JQuery Update that still includes versions of
jquery.js 1.1.2 and compat.1.0.js.
Drupal's CVS maintainers don't just discourage third party code that isn't
GPL compliant, they expressly forbid it regardless of license, reasons given
for including it, or how nicely you ask.  If including third party code was
only a licensing issue, TinyMCE would be much easy to install and
configure.

___

*Kevin Reynen*
Integrated Media Coordinator
Reynolds School of Journalism and
Advanced Media Research
University of Nevada, Reno



On 9/7/07, ttw+drupal at cobbled.net <ttw+drupal at cobbled.net> wrote:
>
> On 06.09-09:18, Thomas Barregren wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > Violating the very same license we require other to conform to
> > definitely diminishes our own cause. But I cannot see how that can be
> > used to justify, morally or legally, further violation. That would be to
> > say: "Since you stole that bike, it is okay for me to steel it from
> > you." Don't you agree?
>
> you are of course, precisely correct but where this becomes a problem
> is that you _can_ run into discrimination laws, whereby, something is
> wholesale violated and suddenly it's an with only one party.  i don't
> think this is a real consideration here.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20070907/c55b4f24/attachment.htm