sábado, 10 de abril de 2010

How does GPL licensing affect projects that don't involve linking/compiling?

This is a question that I've been trying to figure out for a while already.

I'm working on a php project that I will distribute (or whatever word you want to use) under the terms of the Affero GPLv3.

Now I included a piece of code (PHP Simple HTML DOM Parser) that's not under that license (MIT kind of license, apparently) and I started wondering how GPL code gets affected by the code I included... I mean, it's already settled matter that you become a GPL sinner (so to speak) not if you choose to use GPL code mixed with other (proprietary, for example) code.... the sin happens at the moment of redistributing (or propagating or reciprocating or whatever it's called now) the binaries resulting from linking GPL code with code licensed/released under other terms.

But how is it handled when there's no linking? At least no linking to redistribute... think of projects made in PHP or Python, where no binaries are released.

jueves, 1 de abril de 2010

SCO sends patches to the linux kernel

In a move that will surely leave many in the FLOSS community shocked, SCO, the company that just three days ago was claiming that they and not Novell owned UNIX's copyright and that the Linux community were a bunch of free loaders, after getting their claims rejected in a court of law have decided, in a classical "in you can't beat them, join them" fashion, to start sending patches to the linux kernel.

Here's a sample taken from their first submission (from init/main.c):

4c4,7
< * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992 Linus Torvalds
---
> * Copyright (C) 2010 SCO
> *
> * This file is released by SCO under terms that forbid it to be part of any
> * project released under the GPL (as the GPL is famous for being inconstitutional)

Who would have believed it?