|
|
Posted by Martin Larsen on 07/23/07 09:40
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Martin Larsen wrote:
>> Is there a way to contact the PHP Group directly?
> Why?
>
> If you understood the technology, the answer would be clear. Rather, I
> suggest you visit your local library or bookstore and find out how
> interpreters work.
Ok, I will tell you why. I had hoped it was not necessary, but here it is...
I do in fact know how interpreters work. I have actually written one
myself. Being a professional windows programmer for ages, I have also
learned the hard way the distinct difference between dynamic and static
libraries: missing DLL files on the end user's computer preventing the
programs from even starting.
I deliberately asked the question in a simple minded manner as I did not
want my own view of the matter to bias the replies. The thing is that
the core team behind a major CMS (Joomla) has recently changed their
mind about non-GPL plugins (or scripts, if you like). Until then they
accepted and welcomed proprietary plugins, but now they say that since
the CMS is GPL, the plugins must also be GPL to comply.
Now, I don't wish this thread to be for or against GPL. I only want to
discuss the reasoning behind their claims. The point is that they argue
that most extensions are *derivative work* of the CMS (even though they
normally don't include a single line of code from it) because they are
statically linked to the CMS. If they were dynamically linked, the
matter would be different.
Yep, that is what they say. While you and I can agree that it doesn't
make much sense to talk about linking for interpreters, they
nevertheless use it in their argumentation. And that is why I asked the
question: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?
In my opinion they make two mistakes: the first is to talk about linking
at all, the second is to claim that the plugins are statically linked.
As I see it, even when we are not really talking linking, the
characteristics of the processes involved in the INCLUDE more closely
resembles dynamic linking than static linking. Which means that their
argumentation is wrong no matter what.
As it happens, we (third-party developers for Joomla) have tried hard to
make them see that their arguments are wrong. But they keep claiming
that the scripts are statically linked and thus derivative works of the CMS.
And now to my question: Is there a way to contact the PHP Group directly?
I have an idea that if we could get a "official" statement of the
linking or non-linking involved, they might be more prone to listening.
And again, I certainly don't want the PHP Group or any other to comment
on the good or bad of plugins being GPL because that is entirely
irrelevant. I just sincerely believe that their technical resoning is
entirely wrong.
Thanks,
Martin
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|