savannah-register-public
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #5917] Submission of ThemeX/Westgen Sit


From: Stephan Peijnik
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #5917] Submission of ThemeX/Westgen Site-Wide Template Engine
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:49:14 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060830 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.7-1)

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/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]