according to the GPL agreement configuration is not part of the code
that has to be given back - since all modules are configured into the
magnolia system (and everything is done through configuration through
the repository) one could argue that a module you write and distribute
(if it is with magnolia or not) does not have to be GPL.
While we can talk to lawyers all about this, it would be great to see an
official statement from Magnolia on how GPL is interpreted in this case
and what magnolia expects and what not.
Ruben
Boris Kraft wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Lutz Hühnken wrote:
Hi Jan,
thanks for the quick reply.
While we're at it... what does GPL mean for a CMS like Magnolia?
I think it is pretty clear, if I was to publish or sell or distribute
a CMS based on Magnolia CE, it would have to be open source.
In fact, you would probably wont to OEM Magnolia if you want to
distribute your own solution containing Magnolia. If you want to
open-source your work, the first route should be to work with Magnolia
to provide the functionality you want as add-ons (modules) instead of
launching your own distribution. The Magnolia community is small
enough as it stands; further diluting it wouldn't benefit anybody.
But what about modules? If I built a Magnolia module that would be
distributed on its own, but needs Magnolia to run and uses / links to
Magnolia libraries / jars - could that be distributed under a closed
source license?
I believe you can write modules that have any license you want as long
as they are not distributed with Magnolia, but this is not a binding
legal agreement. The GPL is the only binding agreement. I suggest you
talk to a lawyer that understands the implications of GPL.
The suggested route is to talk to us and use Magnolia's distribution
channel for your solution. I have seen too many agencies trying to do
their own thing to no avail. This is short-sighted, see below.
What about page templates? They would contain tags from the Magnolia
taglib... does that mean they would have to be GPLed (or compatible),
too?
Could be.
Don't get me wrong... I don't plan on creating a Magnolia competitor.
But we build web sites for customer based on Magnolia CE, and these
licensing questions just keep coming up.
As long as you only build sites, you should have no issue. As soon as
you build your own modules and distribute them with Magnolia, these
need to be GPL.
Now, beyond all legal considerations, you should try to look at it
from an ecosystem perspective. You (and your clients) are using
software that you did not pay cash for. It is generally expected that
therefore, your investment is in a different form - by contributing
back to the community. Beyond that moral obligation, there is also
good business sense - if you build a module that is useful, this
module should be made available for everyone in the community. This
will considerably raise your company profile and establish you as a
valid part of the community in the eyes of potential customers. At the
same time, it provides more value to everybody in the community at
large, thus increasing the popularity and visibility of Magnolia,
which in turn will make it easier for you to attract customers (the
cake gets bigger for all of us). Finally, open-sourcing a module will
make it better (if you attract others to it).
Is there a FAQ or a wiki page regarding licensing questions?
Yes, on the web, but it doesn't cover your questions (they are not
that frequent yet ;-))
HTH
- Boris
----------------------------------------------------------------
For list details see
http://www.magnolia-cms.com/home/community/mailing-lists.html
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[email protected]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
For list details see
http://www.magnolia-cms.com/home/community/mailing-lists.html
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[email protected]>
----------------------------------------------------------------
