|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 07/23/07 15:26
Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Martin Larsen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If that is the case, I think you'll find that the issue of whether they
> are statically or dynamically linked is not particularly relevant: it's
> tangential to the main question: are the plugins a "derivative work" (as
> defined by the GPL) of Joomla.
>
> My interpretation would be that if you don't use any of the GPL'd Joomla
> code in your plugins, then your plugin is not a derivative work, and it
> may be distributed under any licence you see fit. The act of plugging the
> plugin in to Joomla effectively creates a work which is derivative of both
> the plugin, and of Joomla. This in itself is OK as far as the GPL is
> concerned. However, if you distribute this derivative work, the GPL must
> take effect.
>
> So to cut a long story short, if you distribute an installation of Joomla
> which includes your plugin, the work as a whole, including the plugin,
> must be covered by the GPL. If you distribute them separately (though
> they may be on the same medium, as that would be what the GPL terms a
> "mere aggregation") then the plugin does not need to be GPL'd. If you
> distribute the plugin alone, it does not need to be GPL'd.
>
> But IANAL.
>
> Anyway, your argument to the developers should be that the GPL doesn't
> cover usage -- it just covers distribution (GPLv3 term: "propagation").
> If what you are distributing (the plugin) doesn't contain a single byte of
> source code from the original work, then it's not a derived product, so
> distribution of is not subject to the GPL.
>
> If you want an argument that the plugin alone is not a derived work, point
> out that you could have written it in a white room, with no access to the
> Joomla source code, going by just the Joomla API documentation. (Assuming
> that the documentation is up to scratch!)
>
I would disagree here, Toby.
If they were developing a stand-alone product, they would (of course)
have the right to put whatever licensing into it they wish.
However, they are developing a product to interface to Joomla, and one
which uses Joomla code. The Joomla people have every right to determine
licensing rights to anyone who uses their code.
There are well-established precedents all over the world. For instance,
look at the licensing rights to the libraries in Microsoft's compilers.
They specifically convey to the developer the rights to use this code
in any Windows application. Without specifying these rights, developers
would not have the ability to use the libraries.
Joomla is no different. He wants to use the Joomla code, and Joomla can
demand any product using their code be GPL.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|