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

[Earnie Boyd]

Quoting Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard at killesreiter.de>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Angela Byron schrieb:
>>
>> On 8-Sep-07, at 5:51 AM, Thomas Barregren wrote:
>>
>
>>> I am not completely convinced that it is a "physically impossibility".
>>> After all, it is a limited number of people who have committed code to
>>> the core. I suppose most of them are still members of Drupal.org, and
>>> hence possible to get in contact with. Why not try? Likely, a vast
>>> majority of all core contributors will accept a "FOSS Exception" and
>>> possible also a "Linked Under Controlled Interface Exception" for a
>>> "Module Programming Interface" (e.g. hooks and some utility functions).
>>
>> Interesting. So the act of committing code transfers authorship? My
>
> No, no, no, and no. This does not happen. I think Thomas doesn't know
> how Drupal development works, which made him use the term "core committer".
>

Where did Thomas you "core committer"?  I see "core contributer".  And 
while authorship doesn't transfer copyright can but for Drupal thus far 
copyright assignment hasn't been requested.  And yet while both 
authorship and copyright have been retained by you; there is no 
document to prove it within the source itself.  There is the ticket but 
there is not even a ChangeLog entry to indicate the changes.  This is 
in itself a violation of the GPL as clearly stated in article 2a.

> I hereby state that for none of the patches not written by me that I've
> committed to core or contrib I accept transfer of copyright or
> authorship (the latter is actually impossible under German law) of the code.
>

That is colorfully stated but no one has asked for transfer of ownership.

>> offering up code and saying, "Please commit this to core" is synonymous
>> with "I hereby abandon all rights I have as the author of this code, and
>> trust that the core committers will not someday do something silly with
>> it?"
>>
>> That's something I didn't know before. It was my understanding that
>> copyright was retained by each individual who has contributed code to
>> the project, regardless of who actually pulled the "commit" trigger.
>
> That is my understanding too.
>

The only means by which you can transfer your copyright is by legal 
terms spelled out in writing and then signed by the original owners of 
the code.  There can be stipulations that state that copyright is 
dually maintained so that both parties own a copyright.

Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/
-- http://give-me-an-offer.com/