The same applies to Drupal according to their FAQ: http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q7
So my guess is that we should rather try to find a consens that does not require the Apache Foundation to discuss with Drupal or Moodle Community about changing their point of view. Sebastian 2012/10/12 [email protected] <[email protected]> > Maixm: I share your point of view, I am not the one that you need to > argument against :) > However the GPL folks are quite confident that they are right: > http://markmail.org/message/33hztgfyfxdb3jef > > "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls > to each > other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, > which > must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. > This > means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free > software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those > plug-ins are distributed." > > I don't know if this argumentation is correct, as did Jukka say: It has > kind of a "viral" factor. > But as he did further explain: We do accept the wishes of other > communities beyond the laws. And the Moodle community really wants for > example plugins to be released under the GPL. > > *Even if we ignore that angle for a moment, my perspective has always been > that it's simply not possible to develop code "100% from scratch" in the > real world. Developers always copy existing code, and thus the new code > needs to follow the same license.* > Quote from Martin > Dougiamas<https://moodle.org/user/view.php?id=1&course=5>Founder Moodle at: > https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=135896 > > Actually the Plugin loader at Moodle.org even checks if the plugin has GPL > license file. They do not allow other plugins to be uploaded. > > Sebastian > > > 2012/10/12 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > >> I always thought calling any methods under any license does not add any >> restrictions to your code. >> Google was able to implement Java and it was not violation :) >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM, [email protected] < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > * limit GPL-licensed plug-ins to minimal API calls (over http);* >> > => I don't know how that would practically be implemented? You cannot >> call >> > Drupal functions via HTTP, or access the Drupal/Moodle/Joomla user >> session >> > object and ask about user- or access rights via HTTP. >> > Those plugin specific API calls always will be part of the plugin itself >> > and never performed via HTTP. >> > >> > My idea was more like: >> > >> > >> http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/openmeetings-moodle-plugin/source/browse/trunk/openmeetings_gateway.php >> > and: >> > >> > >> http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/openmeetings-moodle-plugin/source/browse/trunk/lib/openmeetings_rest_service.php >> > >> > Those are files that are shared among all plugins. We could bundle those >> > files and make a general integration SDK and distribute it under the >> Apache >> > License as they do not contain any Drupal/Moodle/Joomla/platform xyz >> > specific code. >> > >> > The plugins could use this SDK plus add the platform specific code and >> then >> > distribute at apache-extras.org. >> > >> > Sebastian >> > >> > 2012/10/11 Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> >> > >> > > So my take on this is the following: >> > > >> > > 1) limit GPL-licensed plug-ins to minimal API calls (over http); >> > > 2) move any complex logic to our side (to Openmeetings services, or >> > > standalone services which do more elaborate calls to Openmeetings). >> > > >> > > We are pretty close to this anyway. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:17 PM, [email protected] < >> > > [email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > The general "echo" is rather negative. >> > > > >> > > > For example Sam Ruby's answer a time ago was: >> > > > *The operative phrase here being "the terms of the GPL must be >> followed >> > > > when those plug-ins are distributed." This really sounds more like >> > > > something that would be made available at Apache Extras:* >> > > > Quoted from: http://markmail.org/message/33hztgfyfxdb3jef >> > > > >> > > > Other follow up that, for example Jukka Zitting did say: >> > > > *I agree with that argument against the viral nature of GPL, but in >> > > general >> > > > the ASF has tended to honor the wishes of upstream copyright owners >> > also >> > > > beyond the requirements of copyright law.* >> > > > Quoted from: http://markmail.org/message/je5hzdocsloofidd >> > > > >> > > > So if the Vice President of Legal Affairs of the Apache Foundation >> and >> > > the >> > > > chair of the Apache Incubator thinks that it would be rather better >> to >> > > > release those plugins outside of the ASF I think chances to release >> > them >> > > > inside require very good arguments and lot of time. >> > > > >> > > > I agree to your position that it _should_ be possible to release >> under >> > > the >> > > > Apache License, but I think we should not make the graduation of our >> > > > project depending on the legal status of the plugins. >> > > > If the final decision is that its okay to release them under the >> Apache >> > > > License => Great! We can still move them to Apache at any time. >> > > > >> > > > After all this looks like some kind of blocker that keeps us away >> from >> > > > moving forward. apache-extras.org might be a good way to resolve >> this >> > > and >> > > > keep concentrating on enhancing our core product. >> > > > >> > > > Sebastian >> > > > >> > > > 2012/10/11 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >> > > > >> > > > > I always thought that since our code contains zero lines of code >> > under >> > > > > incompatible license we are free to release it under ASF. I do >> > remember >> > > > > this was confirmed by last email from legal team >> > > > > On Oct 11, 2012 9:24 PM, "[email protected]" < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > before we try to organize a Vote for graduation it might makes >> > sense >> > > to >> > > > > > clean up plugins from the SVN that have unclear legal status. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I started to move Moodle to apache-extras.org and Drupal. Cause >> > the >> > > > > > discussion already has gone quite far that it is not acceptable >> to >> > > > > > distribute them at the ASF. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What do you think? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Sebastian >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Sebastian Wagner >> > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >> > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de >> > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >> > > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Sebastian Wagner >> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de >> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sebastian Wagner >> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >> > http://www.webbase-design.de >> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >> > [email protected] >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> WBR >> Maxim aka solomax >> > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > [email protected] > -- Sebastian Wagner https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock http://www.webbase-design.de http://www.wagner-sebastian.com [email protected]
