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

[ttw+drupal at cobbled.net]

On 10.09-18:19, Jakob Persson wrote:
[ ... ]
> As for European law I don't know but Wikipedia claims there's such a 
> definition what US law is concerned:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
[ ... ]
> There are futher legal references in the same article. Also considering 
> the number of references to "derivative work" in software licenses and 
> contracts, I very much doubt the term is undefined in common legal practice.

you have to be kidding.  the bickering over semantics is ridiculous.
this is "definition" does not effect the fact that this is open to
interpretation in each specific case; which was the point being made.
the quotation, quite clearly, does not clarify whether using hooks
would be defined as a "derivative work" - which is the case in point.
are you contesting this based upon your reference and suggesting that
it is clearly defined?

i apologise for repeating myself again and again but it makes no
difference what we think the law says.  what is immediately relevant
is the currently licensing issues and the communities stance around
these issues.

[ ... ]
> Since the whole discussion apparently boils down to this definition and 
> the challenging of it, and there's no sign of agreement in sight, we'll 
> need an arbitrator and Lawrence Rosen seems to be a candidate.

i disagree, as per our peers comments, it requires the collection of
copyright holders and the tidying of current licensing.

then, i suggest, it requires a debate on this specific subject (i.e.
how shall we let module writers use our software), a vote, a resolution
between the copyright holders and _only then_ does it requires a
discussion on the legal enforcement of those issues.

(if the community decides to exclude other incompatible licenses
from using hooks then i expect you will be prove correct, it will
boil down to that issue and we will need legal council to close that
loophole)