Update of task #5917 (project administration):
Status: Wait reply => In Progress
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #5:
Hi Brian,
ad 'since other popular GPL software can do the same thing':
First of all, it's not an issue of 'can' or 'can not', technically speaking,
but rather of 'being allowed to' due to the license terms.
Please have a look at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL, you should
find information about this issue there. As for the kernel: there are various
views about the topic, ie. if loading a proprietary kernel module results in
a combined work of the kernel and the module in question. If that is the case
it is a clear license violation and renders all rights granted through the GPL
void. However, as I said, there are various views on that topic. Personally
speaking, I do believe this is a license violation and therefor have strong
feelings about issues like that.
Another thing you might want to have a look at is
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods,
which explains how modified versions of a GPL'ed program do not have to be
distributed, if they stay in-house. This could lead to confusion that people
modified some GPL'ed program and make it look like they've loaded/added
proprietary code, but in fact they've added modifications under the terms of
the GPL and have simply never distributed those.
I can't comment on Wordpress though, but loading modules/addtional scripts
can be seen as dynamic linking and thus would also mean a license violation.
I do recommend that you read the whole GPL FAQ at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html as it may contain a few
answers to your question.
I'll let you know once I've reviewed the tarball.
Regards.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?5917>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
