Bridges between other systems and Gallery 2

kindred

Joined: 2006-07-07
Posts: 6

Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 06:58

Question:

In light of the discussions going on with Joomla's changing interpretation of their use of the GPL, there are several questions raised, not the least of which is: Can one bridge a non-GPL product with a GPL product? On Simplemachines.org, we brought the question up with an FSF representative... and the basic answer was, no, it is not legal to do it, with the GPL as written.

In the case of mambo and several other CMS entities, they have stated that they have made an exception for 3rd party add-ons (components, bridges and the like). In the case of Joomla, they have stated that, not only can they not get an exception (too many owners of code to track down) but they would not write an exception, even if they could.

This leads to my question on Gallery2.
Gallery 2 is GPL.
SMF is not.

Is Gallery 2 willing (and able) to make an exception, allowing SMF (or any other 3rd part system) to bridge (and distribute said bridge) between the forum and the Gallery? This same question would be posed for any other, non-GPL system bridged to Gallery2.
As I understand it, the owner(s) of the Gallery copyright can make a specific or general exception, as they see fit...

bharat

Joined: 2002-05-21
Posts: 7994

Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 17:43

Can you describe the exact package structure? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm the copyright holder for Gallery so I can do the necessary as long as we (you, and the Gallery core team) can agree on exactly what we're doing.

I'm unclear about why the exception is necessary. You're not planning on shipping any Gallery code, right? Just a plugin that can work with Gallery. IANAL but that doesn't sound like an infrigement to me.

kindred

Joined: 2006-07-07
Posts: 6

Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 18:00

Hi Bharat,

I am glad to hear that.
No, there is no plan to distribute any gallery code with the bridge.
I am checking with the bridge author to determine exactly how the package works, but the driving factor on this question is related to the current debate/furor between SMF and Joomla over the "fact" that a bridge makes a "derivative work".
Since Joomla is unable (and unwilling) to grant exceptions, this has forced us to remove the joomla-smf bridge, and while we may eventually find a way to work around it...

Well, you see my point?

So, since I really want to keep my Gallery installation, whatever I do with joomla, I am looking into the situation of other GPL products.
(side note: mambo has stated that they plan to accept any 3rd party plugins, GPL or not)

bharat

Joined: 2002-05-21
Posts: 7994

Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 18:22

Are you willing to make the bridge itself GPL? It seems like htat would resolve the problem, except that makes it harder for SMF to sell it, if that's the goal.

kindred

Joined: 2006-07-07
Posts: 6

Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 18:52

No... SMF does not sell things like that mods and bridges are available for all.
However, since the bridge is an SMF mod package, it falls under the SMF license...

Oldiesmann

Joined: 2005-05-18
Posts: 151

Posted: Wed, 2007-08-01 00:08

bharat wrote:

Can you describe the exact package structure? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm the copyright holder for Gallery so I can do the necessary as long as we (you, and the Gallery core team) can agree on exactly what we're doing.

I'm unclear about why the exception is necessary. You're not planning on shipping any Gallery code, right? Just a plugin that can work with Gallery. IANAL but that doesn't sound like an infrigement to me.

The only Gallery-related code that's included is the typical calls to various G2 methods (mostly GalleryEmbed methods, although there are a few calls to GalleryCoreApi methods as well). I don't think that would be considered shipping Gallery code since it's only an implementation of existing classes and not directly pulled from the classes themselves.
---------------------
The Oldiesmann
SMF Project Manager
SMF+G2 Integration Project - Beta3.1 Now Available!

Oldiesmann

Joined: 2005-05-18
Posts: 151

Posted: Wed, 2007-08-01 19:15

To further elaborate on the need for an exception...

SMF isn't released under a GPL-compatible license.

According to the GPL FAQ:

Quote:

What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"?
Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

Based on that, SMF+bridge+G2 would be considered a "combined work", which means that a bridge between G2 and any non-GPL-compatible software (SMF, vBulletin, etc.) would be illegal. Technically this isn't a problem as long as you choose not to enforce this part of the license, but an exception would make everything completely legal.

See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface for more info on exceptions.
---------------------
The Oldiesmann
SMF Project Manager
SMF+G2 Integration Project - Beta3.1 Now Available!

kindred Joined: 2006-07-07 Posts: 6	Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 06:58
	Question: In light of the discussions going on with Joomla's changing interpretation of their use of the GPL, there are several questions raised, not the least of which is: Can one bridge a non-GPL product with a GPL product? On Simplemachines.org, we brought the question up with an FSF representative... and the basic answer was, no, it is not legal to do it, with the GPL as written. In the case of mambo and several other CMS entities, they have stated that they have made an exception for 3rd party add-ons (components, bridges and the like). In the case of Joomla, they have stated that, not only can they not get an exception (too many owners of code to track down) but they would not write an exception, even if they could. This leads to my question on Gallery2. Gallery 2 is GPL. SMF is not. Is Gallery 2 willing (and able) to make an exception, allowing SMF (or any other 3rd part system) to bridge (and distribute said bridge) between the forum and the Gallery? This same question would be posed for any other, non-GPL system bridged to Gallery2. As I understand it, the owner(s) of the Gallery copyright can make a specific or general exception, as they see fit...
	XUser login Username: * Password: * Create new account Request new password
bharat Joined: 2002-05-21 Posts: 7994	Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 17:43
	Can you describe the exact package structure? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm the copyright holder for Gallery so I can do the necessary as long as we (you, and the Gallery core team) can agree on exactly what we're doing. I'm unclear about why the exception is necessary. You're not planning on shipping any Gallery code, right? Just a plugin that can work with Gallery. IANAL but that doesn't sound like an infrigement to me.

kindred Joined: 2006-07-07 Posts: 6	Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 18:00
	Hi Bharat, I am glad to hear that. No, there is no plan to distribute any gallery code with the bridge. I am checking with the bridge author to determine exactly how the package works, but the driving factor on this question is related to the current debate/furor between SMF and Joomla over the "fact" that a bridge makes a "derivative work". Since Joomla is unable (and unwilling) to grant exceptions, this has forced us to remove the joomla-smf bridge, and while we may eventually find a way to work around it... Well, you see my point? So, since I really want to keep my Gallery installation, whatever I do with joomla, I am looking into the situation of other GPL products. (side note: mambo has stated that they plan to accept any 3rd party plugins, GPL or not)

bharat Joined: 2002-05-21 Posts: 7994	Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 18:22
	Are you willing to make the bridge itself GPL? It seems like htat would resolve the problem, except that makes it harder for SMF to sell it, if that's the goal.

kindred Joined: 2006-07-07 Posts: 6	Posted: Tue, 2007-07-31 18:52
	No... SMF does not sell things like that mods and bridges are available for all. However, since the bridge is an SMF mod package, it falls under the SMF license...

Oldiesmann Joined: 2005-05-18 Posts: 151	Posted: Wed, 2007-08-01 00:08
	bharat wrote: Can you describe the exact package structure? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm the copyright holder for Gallery so I can do the necessary as long as we (you, and the Gallery core team) can agree on exactly what we're doing. I'm unclear about why the exception is necessary. You're not planning on shipping any Gallery code, right? Just a plugin that can work with Gallery. IANAL but that doesn't sound like an infrigement to me. The only Gallery-related code that's included is the typical calls to various G2 methods (mostly GalleryEmbed methods, although there are a few calls to GalleryCoreApi methods as well). I don't think that would be considered shipping Gallery code since it's only an implementation of existing classes and not directly pulled from the classes themselves. --------------------- The Oldiesmann SMF Project Manager SMF+G2 Integration Project - Beta3.1 Now Available!

Oldiesmann Joined: 2005-05-18 Posts: 151	Posted: Wed, 2007-08-01 19:15
	To further elaborate on the need for an exception... SMF isn't released under a GPL-compatible license. According to the GPL FAQ: Quote: What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"? Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program. Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them. What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. Based on that, SMF+bridge+G2 would be considered a "combined work", which means that a bridge between G2 and any non-GPL-compatible software (SMF, vBulletin, etc.) would be illegal. Technically this isn't a problem as long as you choose not to enforce this part of the license, but an exception would make everything completely legal. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface for more info on exceptions. --------------------- The Oldiesmann SMF Project Manager SMF+G2 Integration Project - Beta3.1 Now Available!

Bridges between other systems and Gallery 2

XUser login