Slashdot Mirror
When GPL Becomes Almost-GPL — the CSS, Images and JavaScript Loophole
New submitter sobolwolf writes "It has been apparent for some time that many developers (mainly theme designers) are split-licensing PHP-based GPL distributions, releasing proprietary files alongside GPL files with the excuse that CSS, JavaScript and Images are 'immunized' from the GPL because they run in the browser and not on the server. This is almost always done to limit the distribution of the entire release, not just the proprietary items (most extensions will not function in any meaningful way without the accompanying CSS, Images and JavaScript). Some of the more popular PHP-based GPL projects, like WordPress, have gone as far as to apply sanctions to developers distributing split-licensed themes/plugins. Others, such as Joomla, have openly embraced the split-licensed model, even changing their extension directory submission rules to cater specifically to split-licensed distributions. In light of all this, I would like to ask the following question: While it seems to be legal to offer split-licensed GPL distributions, is it in the spirit of the GPL for a project such as Joomla (whose governing body has the motto 'Open Source Matters') to openly embrace such a practice when they can easily require that all CSS, Images and JavaScript be GPL (or GPL-compatible) for extensions that are listed on the Joomla Extensions Directory?"
when greed and incompetence get mixed up.
You wanna write free software, write free software. You wanna make money, write commercial software and sell it. Should be this simple... but I suppose some people who aren't good enough to do #2 still wanna make money, so they ride on the coattails of a popular free software and do crap like "dual licensing".
Not to mention the whole thing is based on a lie, because there is no "spirit" of a CONTRACT, anybody that brings up that "spirit" shit might as well say "I don't see you doing what i want you doing"...well screw you buddy, should have put it in the damned contract.
Between RMS changing the GPL to target specific companies he doesn't like to those screaming the "spirit!" bullshit frankly the worst enemies of FOSS are the devs and users. If I was looking at software for my company i sure as hell wouldn't use GPL, after all what if i piss off RMS? Get my company dragged through the mud because i couldn't guess what the "spirit" was like trying to guess what munchies a stoner wants? No fricking thanks, I'd do like Sony and Apple and use BSD where its all in black and white and nobody is screaming about spirits like its a damned seance instead of software.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you link against a library you create a derivative work. A derivative work must remain open source if the work it is based on is GPL. When you link you do a lot more than just aggregate a library with your code, you include symbols from the library into your code. This is why the LGPL exists. IANAL, but several corporate lawyers have assured me that linking GPL code into any product we don't want to open source is a bad idea.