Update of task #5917 (project administration): Status: Wait reply => In Progress
_______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #5: Hi Brian, ad 'since other popular GPL software can do the same thing': First of all, it's not an issue of 'can' or 'can not', technically speaking, but rather of 'being allowed to' due to the license terms. Please have a look at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL, you should find information about this issue there. As for the kernel: there are various views about the topic, ie. if loading a proprietary kernel module results in a combined work of the kernel and the module in question. If that is the case it is a clear license violation and renders all rights granted through the GPL void. However, as I said, there are various views on that topic. Personally speaking, I do believe this is a license violation and therefor have strong feelings about issues like that. Another thing you might want to have a look at is http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods, which explains how modified versions of a GPL'ed program do not have to be distributed, if they stay in-house. This could lead to confusion that people modified some GPL'ed program and make it look like they've loaded/added proprietary code, but in fact they've added modifications under the terms of the GPL and have simply never distributed those. I can't comment on Wordpress though, but loading modules/addtional scripts can be seen as dynamic linking and thus would also mean a license violation. I do recommend that you read the whole GPL FAQ at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html as it may contain a few answers to your question. I'll let you know once I've reviewed the tarball. Regards. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?5917> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/