[Typo3-dev] TER License Problem

[Michael Scharkow]

Alexander Langer wrote:

> 
> What is Typoscript?
> 
> Actually, I really don't see the difference between a PHP function call, 
> that is implemented in C, and a Typo3-function call, that happens to be 
> implemented in PHP, but could also be implemented in C.

I expected such an argument, and did mention TS. Please see the last 
paragraph of http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL 
and please don't come and say "but where is that stated directly in the 
GPL". It doesn't has to be, as the GPL is by definition "General".

And concerning function calls: It does not matter what language either 
your code or the interpreter is in, if you call a GPLed function from 
your code, it's a derived work. Notice that this relates to the standard 
library of the language, that's why most interpreters AND related libs 
are not GPLed. $foo = 1 need not be GPLed even if PHP is GPLed because 
it's pure core language code that's interpreted, but if the standard lib 
with function X() is GPLed, than calling X($foo) is a derived work.

> Actually, the issue has been contested in court.  This is known to be 
> the AT&T UNIX against BSD lawsuit, where the BSD developers did exactly 
> what we are talking about:  Implementing open source software using UNIX 
>  API, yes even "stealing" their API for their own products (for 
> compatibility).  The "small" difference:  AT&T _did_ care, and the 
> result of the lawsuit was 4.4BSD-Lite2 being publically available.

Where did you get this from? I think Marshall Kirk McKusick is a 
reliable source for this, and 
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html says:

1. BSD *extended* AT&T unix which was then freely available.
2. USL made their code proprietary and sued UC Berkeley for using their 
code in BSD (which BSD did, but it was free back then)
3. UC Berkeley sued USL for using BSD code without following the 
advertising clause.
4. It was never settled in court.

This is in no way whatsoever related to TYPO3 or GPL. Implementing an 
API is *not* covered by any copyright license (but by software patents) 
because you are not using *any* code. This is exactly what Linux does: 
Implementing the UNIX and posix API without using any UNIX code. What 
does that mean for TYPO3: I can implement my own TYPO3 that can 
interpret Typoscript and do what TYPO3 can, and nobody can prevent me 
from doing that and making it a proprietary product. Isn't that good news?

> This is exactly what I said in the first posting:  In general, no 
> Typo3-extension is derived from stock Typo3-code nor does it contain 
> parts of it.  Thus this paragraph doesn't hold.

1. Pick a random extension from TER
2. look at ext_localconf.php
3. see 
t3lib_extMgm::addPItoST43($_EXTKEY,"pi1/class.tx_myext_pi1.php","_pi1","list_type",0);

This is a call to a GPLed function, if you use it, you're deriving from 
TYPO3.

Greetings,
Michael

PS: Sorry for sounding harsh.