[Typo3-dev] TER License Problem

[Michael Scharkow]

Alexander Langer wrote:
> Michael Scharkow wrote:
> 
>> That's got nothing to do with TER. An extension to TYPO3 is by 
>> definition GPL
> 
> 
> By what definition?
> 
> Definitely not the GPL definition, since an arbitrary extension
> does NOT have to be placed under the GPL.  "arbitrary" means it doesn't 
> share any Typo3-code, e.g. isn't derived from anything the Kickstarter 
> produced.

Alex, we had that discussion before 
(http://typo3.org/documentation/mailing-lists/german-user-list-archive/thread/110114030/?tx_maillisttofaq_pi1%5Bsort%5D=all_replies%3A1&tx_maillisttofaq_pi1%5Bmode%5D=1) 
but since you obviously did not get it:

1. The etymological reason: Extension means you extend an existing piece 
of software, therefore is is derivative, therefore GPLed.

> Yes, Typo3 is covered by the GPL, but the GPL clearly reads "derived 
> from", and extensions are NOT derived from Typo3 (i.e. they share code).
> I checked that twice last time this issue came up on the German Typo3-list.

2. If an extension uses _any_ api call to/from TYPO3 it is derivative 
work, therefore GPLed (or 'available under the terms of GPL').

> Extensions use Typo3 as a framework for execution, which can easily be 
> replaced by third party software (if existent), e.g. Alex4, which might 
> be commercially licensed and doesn't share any code with the original 
> Typo3 codebase.  This is actually how and why BSD splitted from the 
> original AT&T Unix distribution, but vice versa.

??? BSD contained AT&T code (some dozen files) but AT&T also violated 
the BSD license, both has nothing to do with GPL.

> Typo3 does nothing more than providing an API for the execution of those 
> extensions, similar as e.g. PHP provides an API for the "script 
> language" PHP, and PHP was long-time GPLed software.

No, TYPO3 is not an interpreter and not a programming language. You 
could eventually argue that TypoScript code doesn't need to be GPL but 
even this is doubtful considering that it basically uses TYPO3 
infrastructure (graphic functions, etc.).

> Extensions are the author's own work.  Authors are holders of the 
> copyrights of the extension, therefore it's THEIR decision to put their 
> extensions under GPL or not.  But definitely not yours.

No. Extensions are co-authored by their authors, use TYPO3 (=are linked 
to) and therefore it's not their decision. Your argument would make the 
whole GPL obsolete, if I can just say: Okay, I build upon GPLed work but 
the code is mine, and I make it proprietary.

> PS:  Don't try to mix up the issue with LGPL.  LGPL is for libraries, so 
> that binary programs e.g. written in C can _link_ (i.e. derive from, as 
> they share source) with the libraries' code w/o being forced to use GPL 
> theirselves.  Fortunately(?) PHP scripts usually don't come in binary form.

You seem to mix up stuff here.
1.  LGPL is just another license, I can put any of my own code under 
LGPL, no matter if it's a library or a standalone app.
2. GPL is not in any form related to binary or interpreted code. Your 
argument would mean that no code written in any interpreted app can be 
GPLed because it is not _linked_ as with binaries. This is silly, plus 
one could argue that, of course, the bytecode produced by PHP or any 
other interpreter actually does contain the library code. But even 
without those technical arguments: If it *uses* GPLed software other 
than with fork/exec it is a derived work.

Michael