Are template clubs in compliance with the GPL?
The FAQ section of the GPL states that GPL and Non-GPL can not be distributed "incorporated", however these can be distributed alongside.
See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
Therefore, the question is, if it is OK for the template clubs, who put restrictions for usage of the images, css, js stuff in their templates per domain basis, but still ship the whole template (GPL and non-GPL) bundled in one package. Some of them even offer Joomla! distributions bundled with these templates.
IMO, it is clear (based on the FAQ above) that the GPL parts of the templates should be distributed separately from the other stuff.
I know, there were some interpretations by FSF that bundling the templates is fine, but this interpretation is saying the opposite of the GNU FAQ. What is your position on the matter?
See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
Therefore, the question is, if it is OK for the template clubs, who put restrictions for usage of the images, css, js stuff in their templates per domain basis, but still ship the whole template (GPL and non-GPL) bundled in one package. Some of them even offer Joomla! distributions bundled with these templates.
IMO, it is clear (based on the FAQ above) that the GPL parts of the templates should be distributed separately from the other stuff.
I know, there were some interpretations by FSF that bundling the templates is fine, but this interpretation is saying the opposite of the GNU FAQ. What is your position on the matter?
Views: 5
-
Comment by Klas on April 12, 2010 at 5:57am -
Short position - who cares :)
If it is required it's a stupid complication. Together or separately, at the end you get he same thing.
-
Comment by Ivo Apostolov on April 12, 2010 at 6:10am -
Not exactly the same :)
In one way you get something that is plugged with two clicks, in the other you should FTP certain files bla-bla-bla.
The end product changes its value in the two ways. :)
Btw. Slovenia is lovely ;)
-
Comment by Amy Stephen on April 12, 2010 at 6:21am
-
I think the FAQ is getting at the reason CSS, JS, and image elements *can* be licensed differently. By "incorporated" they are getting at the "runs together, as one program" point. The PHP code we use to build Components combines with the Joomla! core and extends Joomla!. Together, there is no way to separate what is one program from the other - it runs in one unit.
On the other hands, CSS, JS, and images are clearly not combined with the PHP during execution. For these elements, there is no extension of Joomla! since there is no incorporation into the source.
By all rights, anyone, Template Developers or Extension Developers, should be able to distribute CSS, JS, and images using another license. The way I'd go about doing that would be by building in Sam Moffatt's Package Manager to get the elements licensed differently.
No one should say that is wrong to do - if that would happen, then, I would recommend distributing the Extension on JED and using Sam's package manager to install a Template stub that would only be used to define file locations for CSS, JS, and images, and then use those elements in your Extension. Surely that's okay.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
-
Oh, and, Yes, Template Clubs are in compliance with the GPL (provided their PHP is GPL'ed.)
-
Comment by Ivo Apostolov on April 12, 2010 at 6:30am
-
It is not exactly true, because the GPL code incorporates them through http requests.
I don't know, might be wrong, but this FAQ quite forbids bundling of gpl with non-gpl.
-
-
Nope. Nothing is incorporated thru http requests, either. It's all downloaded one file at a time, nothing is combined, it never becomes one program.
The way folks who interpret the GPL for us - like the SFLC (and, remember, these are the hardcore GPL dudes, advocates, not opposers to the license) - say that for those elements are not combined as a single runtime, are not derivative of PHP GPL'ed code, it does not incorporate (become one), therefore, it is not subject to the same licensing.
Ma.tt really wanted it the way you are suggesting where *everything* is GPL'ed because it "touched" each other. But even he finally acknowledged it is not so when he shared his note from James Vasile (who is on the OSM Board) which explains this situation.
Ivo - the Template shops which license their JS, CSS, and Images differently than their PHP (and use the GPL for that) are well within their rights to do so. Developers can do the same thing. Don't try to restrict developers more than the GPL requires. Folks gotta feed their families and they need ways to do so and comply. That's not bad - it's perfectly a-ok, fine, and moral.
-
Comment by Ivo Apostolov on April 12, 2010 at 7:05am
-
I am not trying, neither I am against paying, neither I am against having different license for the js/css/images. Don't get me wrong.
It is just interesting why this FAQ is considered as irrelevant for such products.
-
-
Read http://wordpress.org/development/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ - it really gets into this very question. Interesting stuff. Here's one snippet from that piece:
Specifically, the CSS files and material contained in the images directory of the “default” theme are works separate from the WordPress code. On the other hand, the PHP and HTML code that is intermingled with and operated on by PHP the code derives from the WordPress code.
The GPL is viral, but work has to combine with - extend - be as one with - the GPL'd source in order to be affected.
I like to think of it as bread starter which can be extended, over and over, to become part of many loaves of bread. The additional ingredients added to the starter to create a loaf of bread are combined, it's all incorporated into one item - you can't separate the starter from the additional elements when you examine a slice of bread. It is one thing.
If you apply the GPL to this analogy (and therefore enter the realm of the ridiculous!), the starter has the GPL, and the flour, and water added to it to make bread must also bear the GPL.
Now, if you sell two slices of this bread with a nice piece of ham and swiss cheese, do the meat and cheese then also become incorporated with the bread starter? (The answer is no. ;-) ) You can separate those elements easily from one another - they are not incorporated into one entity -- even though they are consumed together and touch one another and come in the same package.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions on your intent. I just get frustrated by folks who dive into the spirit of the GPL, etc., and try to hand cuff devs who are complying with the GPL. We should only ask for compliance, nothing more. (Which you agree.).
-
Comment by Klas on April 12, 2010 at 7:47am
-
@ Ivo: you were here and no beer-stop.. ccc.. that's what I call a lost opurtunity!
Hope they showed you the country and didn't just took you to Bled
-
Comment by Ivo Apostolov on April 12, 2010 at 7:49am
-
We missed Bled, we were in Maribor and Ljubljana, but simply didn't have enough time.
© 2012 Created by Amy Stephen.
You need to be a member of All Together, As A Whole to add comments!
Join All Together, As A Whole