Quoting Daniel Isacc Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I made a PHP extension for the talkfilters library. It's not a big > achievement, it's maybe 100-200 lines of code .. I've run into a license > problem . PHP is under the PHP license and the talkfilters library is > under the GPL .
That would create a licence conflict if you were redistributing a derivative work consisting of the talkfilters lib linked to the PHP interpreter -- but you're not. > What this means is that my software is automatically GPL'd even though > it has no GPL'd source in it. No, that's incorrect. _You alone_ are legally empowered to state licence terms for your code. That's what we mean by copyright ownership. > The GPL doesn't distinguish between linking and directly copying and > pasting source code, or at least not from my perspective. And? You seem to have some misconceptions about the GPL's copyleft provision, what its effect is, and in what circumstances it applies. In order: 1. The copyleft provision (GPLv2 clauses 3, 6, and 7) state what rights must be conveyed to derivative works during redistribution of the code as part of those derivative works. 2. Those rights must not be less than those specified in GPLv2. 3. The obligation is triggered by the act of redistribution, not usage. (See also: scope of GPLv2 detailed in clause 0.) It can be satisfied by one of the methods specified in clause 3. > The problem is that , with my understanding, because my code gets > incorporated directly into PHP that means that PHP automatically becomes > GPL'd. Your understanding is incorrect. Just _think_, please: How _could_ it possibly be correct? That would constitute involuntary seizing of the PHP interpreter authors' property (their copyright title). That doesn't happen. Under copyright law, if you perform an act in violation of someone's copyright, you have committed the tort of copyright violation. In extreme cases, a judge might force you to pay damages in addition to ceasing the violation, but there is zero likelihood that any of the parties to that dispute would be ordered to grant a licence to his (copyright) property against his will. > So I tried to get the talkfilters developer to switch to the LGPL Why? Are you seeking to... 1) Link a GPL-covered work (talkfilters) to a PHP-licensed work (the PHP interpreter v. 4 or later), and 2) Redistribute the resulting derivative work? Based on your description, that does NOT appear to be the case. Therefore, you would seem to be trying to solve a non-existent problem. > I shouldn't have written anything, I suppose. Is that the power > of the GPL? The GPL has the power to stop open source developers from > developing. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me, either -- but not in the sense you intend. You appear to have fundamentally misunderstood how licensing works. Perhaps you should read the text of GPLv2, the text of the PHP Licence v. 3.0, and the Copyright Act, contemplate the meaning of "derivative work" in the latter, and work out how licensing works when people re-use code. > I like the idea of the GPL, but maybe we need to be a little more > pragmatic. Or maybe people need to be educated with respect to the > GPL. Well, the latter for sure. ;-> But, actually, the very same considerations apply for combinations of code in proprietary licensing. > The GPL isn't always the best license. No doubt. But that appears to be irrelevant to the matter at hand. -- Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music, [EMAIL PROTECTED] denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart
