Other Software > Developer's Corner

Choosing a CMS

<< < (10/18) > >>

JavaJones:
If the bridge is GPL doesn't that then mean that SMF has to be GPL to work with the bridge?... :D

- Oshyan

Renegade:
If the bridge is GPL doesn't that then mean that SMF has to be GPL to work with the bridge?... :D

- Oshyan
-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 06:08 PM)
--- End quote ---

The part "This is a WordPress call:" is GPL as well because it's part of a derivative work. Ooops. This entire post is. Ooops. This entire thread is. Ooops. This entire forum is. Ooops. This entire site is. Ooops. The entire Internet is. Ooops. The entire world is. Ooops... Since I read it, and that knowledge is a part of my being, and I'm now GPL'd myself~! :P My wife is gonna HATE that~! :D
--- End quote ---


That's exactly what I mean. Where does it stop? Simply writing a piece of software between a GPL title and a non-GPL title cannot change the license for the non-GPL title. It's nuts.

In a temporal sense, if you have a time-line like this:

1) A is written (GPL)
2) B is written (non-GPL)
3) C is written (GPL) and connects A & B

It would be insane to assume that B must change its license because of C. If that were true, all software would be GPL (just about).

This is some of the nuttiness that I just don't get.

JavaJones:
It's not that anything must change license, just that the license must be GPL to be distributed legally. ;)

Here's the thing though, as Jfusion proves, it depends on *how* something is written and how it interfaces GPL to non-GPL. It *can* be done legitimately, as Jfusion again shows. I think the key is in how separate it is. For example a Joomla-integrated system that presented a Joomla plugin UI would be using Joomla deeply enough to require being GPL itself. If it then integrates with a non-GPL system, it would simply need to do so in a way that did not A: use that system's API or B: use any proprietary elements of that system besides data. In other words direct data access would be acceptable, i.e. Jfusion directly reading and writing to SMF's SQL database info. I'm not actually sure that's how it works, but that's my understanding of what would be legal.

- Oshyan

Renegade:
It's not that anything must change license, just that the license must be GPL to be distributed legally. ;)
-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 08:05 PM)
--- End quote ---

Here's the thing that I don't get...

1) I go and get program X (GPL). (e.g. A GPL database.)
2) Then I go and get program Y (non-GPL). (e.g. WinAmp)
3) *I* write some software to connect the two (license irrelevant at the moment). (A program that processes what the database is doing to create playlists and integrates at a low level - Ok stupid program, but that's besides the point.)

So far this is all fine and dandy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now...

4) I release my plugin/software as GPL. I do not bundle it with the DB or WinAmp.

*MY* software *IS* released under the GPL.

And so?

I don't believe there is any requirement for any software to actually function properly, so whether or not my software works there is irrelevant to the license. You can plug it into the GPL DB fine and all is well for the license.

But, what happens once the software plugs into WinAmp? I didn't do it. The user did it. I've not violated anything. And since the user is not bound to any special usage terms and because the user isn't distributing anything, he's not violating the GPL.

So??? What's up? I don't get it.



Here's the thing though, as Jfusion proves, it depends on *how* something is written and how it interfaces GPL to non-GPL. It *can* be done legitimately, as Jfusion again shows. I think the key is in how separate it is. For example a Joomla-integrated system that presented a Joomla plugin UI would be using Joomla deeply enough to require being GPL itself. If it then integrates with a non-GPL system, it would simply need to do so in a way that did not A: use that system's API or B: use any proprietary elements of that system besides data. In other words direct data access would be acceptable, i.e. Jfusion directly reading and writing to SMF's SQL database info. I'm not actually sure that's how it works, but that's my understanding of what would be legal.
-JavaJones (January 31, 2011, 08:05 PM)
--- End quote ---


I should go back and read more on Jfusion. It seems very interesting. I have no idea how they'd do what they claim though.

Oh, I can think of 1 way, but I still don't get the whole licensing thing... (use a provider model then have Joomla/SMF consume the provider)

JavaJones:
Honestly this is now getting outside of the range of my own understanding of GPL and licensing law. It *is* complicated stuff, which is unfortunate because it needs to be understood by many "lay" people to really be properly respected. This is part of the problem with the way the GPL is constructed; it asks things of the developer and, in some cases, the user that are not necessarily intuitive. Software use and selection shouldn't be this complicated...

- Oshyan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page