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?"
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?"
Yes, it is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL to add exemptions to the license terms. Plenty of GPL projects, even those from the GNU project, have exemptions to the GPL terms such as linking in GPLed libraries, etc. Stop being such a freetard.
The GPL has never been about data (e.g. the Doom WAD files), but just about the code.
The fact that so many themes and what not are violating the principles of separation of content and presentation and interaction (HTML, CSS, and JS) is a problem. But, if they weren't doing it, then it wouldn't matter if the JS and CSS were Free or not. Because the content would be usable without the crap.
Personally, I just say, don't use themes that aren't all Free. Solves the issue for me.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Actually, there usually is a spirit of legal document, and it can differ from the letter. For example, the CTEA might be argued to fit the letter of the Copyright Clause, since continual extensions are technical limited times, but it certainly doesn't fit the spirit of the constitutional there, as it can't feasibly promote literary progress to reward authors retroactively. Two Justices were aware of this fact, but the majority was not, unfortunately.
While GPLv3 may not have been the most elegantly exectuable change, it was driven by 3 needs. A new technological means of circumventing end-user control, an increasing threat of patent lawsuits under a new legal means, and better compatibility with existing licenses. The changes you decry are the result of treating a license somewhat like software, making what will hopefully be mostly improvements and patch flaws, but this inevitably results in some regressions. Honestly, 3 releases in over 25 years isn't bad at all.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I have asked FSF about this specific issue.
They basically consider HTML as a container, like a ZIP archive. So, the "bundling" that occurs when HTML is combined and rendered to the browser is not considered a derivative work in the eyes of FSF, just like if you bundle GPL files with non-GPL files in a ZIP file, the contents of the ZIP do not all fall under the GPL.
This means that when things are combined in to an HTML file, even if parts of the HTML file are GPL, the entire resulting document, is not GPL.
I find this view inconsistent, and disagree with it, but it's their license, so who am I to judge. Mind, if my view were followed, then things would be quite different on the web. So, their view is probably the "correct", and most certainly "pragmatic" view. I just think it's inconsistent.
Now, how that applies to externally loaded files (like JS and CSS) is not clear to me, but I assume the same rules apply. In a normal program, were you to link them together, the entire finished product would be GPL. But not under the auspices of the browser environment, apparently.
I think if the "HTML is a container" view is the correct stance, then the included files would also be immune to the GPL for the same reasons.
dual licensing is a licensing issue. Nothing about free software prevents you from making money off it, that argument has never been true. Look at redhat.
It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap that Microsoft et al have been capitalising.
This behaviour ("split licensing") is perfectly fine, legal and moral.
The GPL is all about preserving access to code. If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well. This is to stop people "proprieterizing" GPLed code by making a few incompatible changes and releasing it.
The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project. But people are afraid it does mean that, due to people like the poster, and Microsoft's FUD. If you want to know why people are shying away from the GPL, and view it as a threat, look to the article submitter.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I remember 10 years ago I actually saw a retail boxed package of Red Hat Linux in a store in a small northern Wisconsin town, I thought it was funny.
The software in the box was of course "free". The box itself, the manual, the support, and the media inside the box cost $39.95.
Ok, he'd chew his hair and wax poetic. We know that already, but what would the poem say?.
I suspect it'd say: I'm sorry, but CSS very much is code. Not in the sense true languages are like C++, Python and PHP are. Ok, I'm not so sure that PHP qualifies. But anyway, the reason that even so piddly not-real-languages are part of the code is that it's nearly impossible to use the real code with the underlying CSS underpinnings that, actually, pin the boxes to the right place on the screen. Go ahead, take some huge news site, remove the CSS from it and see if you can still use it. I bet you can't. It frequently ends up looking like an application that magically put all their widgets rooted at 0,0 in the window. It's useless. Sure, it's all there, but it's useless. Thus, it has to be a rather important part of the "code". It takes both the output of the underlying framework langue and the CSS to make the result usable. Otherwise it's like compiling C-code into assembly, but for the wrong chip.
I'm quite sure this violates the principal of the GPL. I'm not sure about the letter of the law, since IANAL. But it sure smells like a GPLv4 is ripe for the picking.
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Actually, you could do that with GPL code as well. Just use trademark law. Firefox does the same thing, which is why Debian ships iceweasel. Now, it might be a bit more complex if you are building your project off of someone else's GPL code, but in that case, you are likely the one who is "it into something it was not supposed to be."
Actually, you don't need to share your contributions in you don't distribute your code.
Patents break everything everywhere. Where GPL patent clauses get messy is when you are shipping a product where you license a patent from someone else.
As for binary blobs, that's usually not tied to patents. Otherwise, distros from countries without software patents would ship with Nvidia drivers. Binary blobs are the results of non-free code. I believe a large portion of it is that the code is already under a restrictive copyright license for reasons like sharing a decent chunk of code with a proprietary windows driver, which they may not retain all the rights to. There's also fear that competitors will reverse engineer their products via this source code or similar such nonsense.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Redhat doesn't sell software.
They sell subscription to software, which in practice is selling software. You go to them, you pay money, you get software.