[Typo3-dev] New extension

[Rob Kamp]

Just to get it right:

The peace of software needing the GPL licence is the javasript menu.

In that case do I have to ask the auhtor to release his javascript menu 
under GPL?
If he agrees it is ok under GPL to use his javascript menu within this 
GPL software?


Rob Kamp wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
> This would mean that if I use any third party component in my software 
> that I cannot redistribute this package even if the software 
> third-party component is free of charge. I have never heard of such 
> limitations, but then I am still learning all the time.
>
> As far as I am concerned I would not make any restrictions on the 
> software I built being reused in other projects or environments. The 
> only thing I would like to have happen is that if anyone changes my 
> software for the better or irons out my bugs I would appreciate this 
> new bugfixed polished software back on my doorstep so I can take 
> advantage of this software as well. This is what opensource is all 
> about in the first place, I think.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob Kamp
>
> Martin T. Kutschker wrote:
>
>> Michael Stucki wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Masi,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Still the Typo3 PHP-code and JS-code will form together with the
>>>> 3rd-party PHP and/or JS-code the application. Specifically the 
>>>> 3rd-party
>>>> code will be embedded in TYpo3 which is GPLed. So even if you write 
>>>> code
>>>> that generate code itself, the resulting machine created code will run
>>>> in a GPLed envoriment. AFAIK although the wording of the GPL sounds 
>>>> like
>>>> linking of C/C++ programs the FSF has made a point that the licence
>>>> covers dynamic linking in interpreter languages (eg Java) and 
>>>> "scripting
>>>> languages" (eg PHP, Perl). So I deduce that the at least spirit of the
>>>> licence prohibits such "soft linking".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not a license expert but would like to hear your opinion. What 
>>> do you
>>> think about this one:
>>> http://www.contentmanager.de/magazin/news_h10378_universitaet_paderborn_integriert_realobjects.html 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, if I continue my argument that a TYPO3 installation is to be 
>> seen as a single application - including the PHP and JS codes but 
>> also the generated (!) HTML (especially but not limited to the BE) - 
>> all code (PHP, JS, Java, Active X, Flash, ...) that interacts and/or 
>> is embedded to the application must follow the GPL.
>>
>> But IANAL. Perhaps the FSF has some point to say on that. And maybe 
>> it's up to the laws of each country.
>>
>> And it's some kind of grey zone anyway. Would the licence/TYPO3 
>> require also binaries to be GPLed (eg imagmagick and tidy)? If not, 
>> one may want to argue that this means this "exemption" also applies 
>> to eg an RTE.
>>
>> But I don't think so. A binary interacts with a well-defined 
>> interface. No hard or soft linking whatsoever occurs. An RTE OTOH 
>> must interact with numerous parts of TYPO3 to work properly. So IMHO 
>> it's not ok to include any non-GPL-compatible code in the BE and it's 
>> debatable if it's fine for the FE.
>>
>> The question is, as I see it, if the 3rd party code uses any TYPO3 
>> (so linking is evident) or if the "whole application" argument of me 
>> is enough to require licence compatibility. In the first case 
>> embedding some FE-JS code may be allowed, but not in the latter.
>>
>> Masi
>>
>> PS: As has been posted on the linked site the pricing of this RTE is 
>> incredibly high. The original RTE is not that bad to justifiy such a 
>> ridiculous high price.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Typo3-dev mailing list
>> Typo3-dev at lists.netfielders.de
>> http://lists.netfielders.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/typo3-dev
>
>
>
>
-- 

Met vriendelijke groet,


Rob Kamp

<a href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&amp;id=0&amp;t=67"><img border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" src="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/community/images/affiliates/Buttons/88x31/trust.gif"/></a>