On Aug 31, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Thomas Barregren wrote:
> The issue original brought up by Jeff Eaton was about
the fact that
> it is not permissible to write modules that bridge
software with a
> license not compatible with GPL.
This interpretation is tragic for GPL applications, imho. It
makes
GPL toxic to other non-GPL applications out there. IANAL. I
speak
only to my perception of how such reasoning can effect the
adoption
of GPL throughout the world.
>>
>> This reasoning seems to employ arguments made by
the RIAA and
>> MPAA, except to opposite effect.
>
> That might be due to the fact that both FSF/GNU and
RIAA/MPAA use
> the same copyright law. 
Law is open to interpretation, and the legal tactics of the
RIAA and
MPAA are hardly universally viewed as being consistent with
copyright
law.
Not to mention how they are attacking their own customers in
the
process and undermining their own markets. I believe the
cliche is
"to cut off ones nose to spite ones face."
>
>> I write this as a GPL advocate and a big believer
in open source.
>> GPL open source software is greatly advantaged to
dominate the
>> software world eventually, but trying to force that
through legal
>> ownership assertions strikes me as a great way to
undermine the
>> whole movement.
>
> The beauty of GPL is that is doesn't fight the
copyright laws.
> Quite the opposite! GPL leverage on the copyright laws
to protect
> your freedom to
>
> * to run the program for any purpose.
--except to integrate with any non-GPL application.
> * to study and modify the program.
--unless, of course, you want to bridge it with a non-GPL
application, apparently.
> * to copy the program so you can help your
neighbor.
--unless, of course, you want to help your neighbor
integrate a GPL
application into his non-GPL universe.
> * to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the
> public, so that the whole community benefits.
--unless, of course, you software doesn't, in effect, ignore
the non-
GPL world.
Suddenly there are caveats in there.
>
> GPL allows you to use both GPL:ed and non-GPL:ed API:s
to bridge
> different applications. GPL also allows you to
distribute the
> derivative work which emerges thereby. But to make sure
that *you*
> don't deny the receiver the same rights as you got, GPL
requires
> you to distributed the derivative work under GPL.
Therefore I think
> this reciprocity of GPL (a.k.a. "copyleft")
is something very good.
>
> The reciprocity prevents *distribution* of works
derived partly
> from a third-party software with a license which is not
compatible
> with GPL. Normally, this is also something good. As is
said on the
> GPL FAQ:
>
> "If we permitted company A to make a
proprietary file, and
> company B
> to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that
file, the
> effect
> would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to
drive a truck
> through. This would be carte blanche for withholding
the source
> code
> for all sorts of modifications and extensions to
GPL-covered
> software."
>
> See
> htt
p://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-
> faq.html#TOCMoneyGuzzlerInc
>
>
> But, as this discussion is about, this can also pose a
hindrance
> for situations where it can seem reasonable to include
software
> with license not compatible with GPL.
>
> For an example, imagine someone who has put in a lot of
effort to
> write code that integrates a popular but proprietary
software with
> Drupal. So far it is okay under GPL. But now he wants
to share his
> effort with the community. Since the integration code
calls
> functions and share data structures with both the
proprietary
> software and Drupal, it is not allowed.
That's the problem, isn't it? Suddenly "free" does
not mean what it
means. That also seems to mean that proprietary systems need
not try
to integrate with Drupal, even if they want to offer such
integration
to the community under GPL. According to the reasoning at
the top of
this thread, GPL prevents them from doing that. That is a
shame
because it could seriously hinder or prevent the adoption of
Drupal
and other GPL software throughout the business world (where
I argue
it could do a lot of good).
>
> Fortunately, there is a solution. As long as you don't
revoke any
> rights granted by GPL, you can add your own terms and
conditions.
> This can be used to allow integration with software
under a license
> incompatible with GPL. Two examples on this:
>
> * htt
p://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-
> faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
> * htt
p://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-
> faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
>
> So, to solve the problem that the licensing of Drupal
currently
> force us to "dumbing down" or "bypassing
of established application
> methodologies", I suggest that the Drupal
licensing is supplemented
> with an exception for module developers linking through
hooks.
All we need to do is track down everyone who has contributed
code to
the Drupal project and get their okay, right?
>> Laura (who's still wondering what was wrong with
GPLv2)
>
> Pardon???
>
> All what had been said applies to GPL v2 as well as v3.
So you
> concerns must consequently also apply to GPL v2 which
is used by
> Drupal. Correct?
That signoff followed "Time to stop developing
software and start
developing new licenses and lawsuits!" It was
deliberately snarky,
and as such perhaps confusing to some. My apologies.
Laura
|
