GetSimple License

[mvlcek]

GetSimple is licensed under the GPLv3.
However, this is only shown in the footer of get-simple.info. And the text near the download link has a "(GPL)" added.

There is no license document in the download, although this is required by the GPLv3.

Additionally, as I understand the GPL,
[list=*]
[*]the consequence is that each plugin, language and theme must also be licensed under the GPLv3 (or be more permissive).[/*]
[*]Thus probably a copy of the GPLv3 has to be provided with each plugin[/*]
[*]A plugin or theme author may choose to charge money for his plugin or theme, but it will still be licensed under the GPLv3 and thus each buyer can redistribute it to the public with or without charge.[/*]
[/list]

Is my understanding of the situation correct?

[hameau]

IANAL, but you have some valid points.

GS should certainly include a copy of the licence and refer to it more frequently in the source files. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

There should probably be an exception statement to allow plugin and theme authors to use other licences, for example, this statement is part of WolfCMS.

Plugin authors should specify the licence, too. Also be careful about what they bundle with their plugins, for example, JavaScript libraries that may require specific acknowledgement or even prevent redistribution.

mvlcek wrote:... must also be licensed under the GPLv3 (or be more permissive).

Had to smile there. Is more permissive possible ?

[Connie]

Nick,

al these points are important. But in the moment I see not enough manpower to check and to take care that all plugins and themes are license-compliant

[mvlcek]

hameau wrote:There should probably be an exception statement to allow plugin and theme authors to use other licences, for example, this statement is part of WolfCMS.
...

mvlcek wrote:... must also be licensed under the GPLv3 (or be more permissive).

Had to smile there. Is more permissive possible ?

Quote from the WolfCMS plugin exception:

The Exception is automatically terminated when the terms placed on the Plugin
are more restrictive than the GNU GPL.

The exception allows only a more permissive license for the plugins.

Might be something like to allow the distribution of a plugin's modification without the original author being mentioned?

[mvlcek]

Connie wrote:al these points are important. But in the moment I see not enough manpower to check and to take care that all plugins and themes are license-compliant

The GPLv3 license text should definitely be included in the download - otherwise it's a violation of the GPL ;-) - and it should be mentioned on the home page or at least on the download page and not just in the footer.

The reason for bringing this up, was - besides the fact that it takes a user much too long to find out which license GetSimple has - the need to state my interpretation that GetSimple plugins and themes can be sold by an author, but he can not prevent the buyer from just distributing the bought plugin or theme to the public, i.e. worst case for the author is that he sells his plugin or theme only once.

[ccagle8]

adding the license to the download package isnt a problem.... I've never been one to be a stickler for enforcing licensing so i quickly picked the most non-restrictive license i could, which in this was the GPL.

I will get it added to the download now, and add it more prominent on the Download page. I don't care to add it to the homepage b/c really, where would it reside? I like the current layout now....

[hameau]

mvlcek wrote:A plugin or theme author may choose to charge money for his plugin or theme, but it will still be licensed under the GPLv3 and thus each buyer can redistribute it to the public with or without charge.

Not true. You, as a plugin author, can licence your work however you wish and under more than one licence at the same time (though not more than one licence in the same distribution package at the same time). So, you can have a GPL version and a proprietary licensed version, though that doesn't make a lot of sense with a PHP script unless you go for encryption (e.g., Zend Guard or similar). These could be versions with the same capabilities (not much point) or a free version and a commercial, enhanced, version.

You must make the source code of the GPL version easily available as long as the program is available and there would be nothing preventing a third party from adding in features (including features reverse-engineered from your commercial version) or taking control of a forked version under a new name. You would still – and forever – have copyright in your original GPL'd code and you must be credited for that, even when it appears in the forked, re-named version.

In the general arrangement of a core program and plugin enhancements, that's a whole new grey area. AFAIK, there's nothing to prevent a proprietary plugin from being used with a GPL application, but you wouldn't be able to distribute a single package with proprietary plugin and GPL core compiled together or have proprietary code included in a GPL product.

I emphasise, this is not legal advice, but an informed opinion.

Connie wrote:al these points are important. But in the moment I see not enough manpower to check and to take care that all plugins and themes are license-compliant

Yes, they are important – legally binding important. The only thing that the GetSimple executive has to be concerned with, is the licensing of GetSimple and seeing to its compliance with the licence terms. Plugins and themes are the responsibility of their respective authors.

That said, I haven't seen much evidence of licence or copyright statements in either plugins or themes, not that it's essential, but it's certainly prudent for the author.

[mvlcek]

hameau wrote:Not true. You, as a plugin author, can licence your work however you wish and under more than one licence at the same time (though not more than one licence in the same distribution package at the same time). So, you can have a GPL version and a proprietary licensed version, though that doesn't make a lot of sense with a PHP script unless you go for encryption (e.g., Zend Guard or similar). These could be versions with the same capabilities (not much point) or a free version and a commercial, enhanced, version.

No, in the case of GetSimple and plugins they make function calls to each other and share data structures (like the i18n translations and variables like $url, $LANG, etc.). Thus IMHO the plugin must be licensed under the GPL or a compatible license (one giving more rights to the user). See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins.

[hameau]

mvlcek wrote:Thus IMHO the plugin must be licensed under the GPL or a compatible license (one giving more rights to the user).

Yes, I understand what you say. However, note the use of "we believe" in that GNU FAQ – their point of view is not universally accepted and it is only a point of view.

Proprietary modules and the Linux kernel is another case of the same argument, but it still goes on. I can understand the distribution of a complete package (with a mix of GPL and other licences) being a violation, but to prevent plugins to GPL code from having other licences is a bit of a stretch as they don't permanently modify the original code and the effect is reversible.

Imagine a GPL CMS and a GPL plugin. This hypothetical plugin allows the CMS to have embedded YouTube video or a Google map, using public API calls. Does that change the licence of the whole installation ? Or a plugin that shows protected, non-free photographs in a gallery ? Are they not "linking dynamically or statically" to non-free code ?

Regarding Wolf's exception, I understood it to be a waiving of licence terms on a per-installation basis, but I may have got it wrong. It happens. ;-)

Edit to add : this whole argument is, of course, a lifetime's work for greater minds than mine and I tend to take a more pragmatic view than the GNU folk.