FAQ and GPL Topic is solved

[Vin]

A little poked around the CMSMS website (BTW, this new design is great!) and found this in the Support > FAQ:

6. Can I use CMSMS for my commercial project?

Yes, you can use it in your commercial applications. However, if you make any changes to the supplied code, you're required by the license to publish those changes free of charge to the public. And you cannot change the copyright messages at the top of all files. You're also welcome to write extensions under a different proprietary license and do not have to release them.

Well, I thought GPL doesn't require this - what it requires is that the user of the software has to have access to the source code (free of charge) if he demands it. Therefore, if you do some changes to the code and you do not distribute it further, it's all right - you can have your own private code.

The second part - what is the meaning of a license if you don't release the extension? Also, this reminds me the attitude of Joomla's guys towards proprietary extensions, which makes a headache to them now. However, I'm not sure what you mean by that line, so may someone of you clear it up a bit?

I'm sorry if I made this topic in an inappropriate board, but I couldn't think of better one.

[Ted]

The GPL is a complicated beast, that's for sure. 

You're right on the first part.  I need to go back and reword that a bit, as it's not quite in the spirit of the license.  It should basically say what you just said, in that the source code should be available if you demand it.  There should be a bit about distributing changed code, but I wouldn't know how to word it..  obviously I'm a programmer and not fluent in legalese.

As far as the 2nd point.  Let's say I write some fancy module that allocates resources to some paper making machine that I invented.  I can write that module under any license I want, since it's only using our API.  If I want a commercial license for that module and want to sell it to the people that buy my machine, then it's perfectly acceptable to do that.  Does that make more sense?

[Vin]

The GPL is a complicated beast, that's for sure. 

Yeah, but talk about EULA 

As far as the 2nd point.  Let's say I write some fancy module that allocates resources to some paper making machine that I invented.  I can write that module under any license I want, since it's only using our API.  If I want a commercial license for that module and want to sell it to the people that buy my machine, then it's perfectly acceptable to do that.  Does that make more sense?

Oh no, no, no, no... this looks like a common misconception about GPL. That is what I've been talking about in case of Joomla - some people released modules under a GPL-non-compatible license and now they have problems, as the Joomla team can't relicense it (a lot of code inherited from Mambo)

If I understood it correctly from the http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense, the license of the module may be whatever you like if you release it under LGPL, or Lesser GPL.

At present, it looks like you can release the modules under a non-GPL license only for the commercial license of CMSMS.

[Pierre M.]

Hello,

First point : my (latin?) understanding of the GPL :
-you can USE (run, patch, study, modify, configure, enjoy...) a GPL package as much as you like as long as you want on all your computers where you want.
-if you REDISTRIBUTE the package or a patch of it you must do this under the GPL which implies providing the source code.

Second point : closed modules using the API of a GPL package.
-I still don't understand how this can exist (isn't it a derived work, hence should be released under GPL too ?)
-But it exists. Example : nvidia drivers modules using Linux's kernel API.

As you have guessed I am not a law-er.

Pierre M.

[Ted]

See, this is my main issue.  I seems like no one really has a firm grasp on this license or no one follows it correctly.