On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Georg C. F. Greve
<greve@kolabsys.com> wrote:
Hi Till,
On Saturday 03 December 2011 21.06:00 till wrote:
> I think this is incorrect and therefor I need some clarification: how is
> this possible with either license?
Because of the exception.
The exception is possible because of the exception?
Check out
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
for some background and examples.
I wish this was less complicated. The exception clause still doesn't make sense to me.
The first link is discussing using libraries with another license – let's forget non-free (though I "object" to that term) for a second: does that mean that other libraries need to be dual-licensed in order to be included? Or not be included at all (which is currently why we have two different releases)?
The second link – I don't get at all. I looked for a German translation and there is none currently. It suggests that templates are licensed using the same license the 'system' is licensed in. But what happens if these templates are 'commercial' works? If you go from templates to plugins, how does that work?
The third link makes no sense to me because we don't compile anything here. How is this applicable for RoundCube?
I'm sure this is easy to grasp for some people, but I'd like to see this explicitely stated in writing before we decide on this and then all of a sudden some of our users end up on
gpl-violations.org.
> You should reach out to the FSF, [...]
That is what Thomas did.
He has raised this with FSFE's Freedom Task Force some time ago, and the
proposed exception has been discussed with Dr. Till Jaeger of JBB Berlin, who
was co-author of the first publication on the GPL in Germany, and the first to
enforce it in court worldwide.
Dr. Jaeger has also been intimately involved in the drafting of GPLv3 and is
still the legal representative of FSFE, gpl-violations.org and some others.
Must have missed those emails – is there a way to see this conversation somewhere?
It should be 'in' this thread, IMHO.
> TL;DR: PHP files in themes must be GPL, CSS/Images/JavaScript must not be
> GPL (but can be of course). I'm guessing plugins are 100% GPL.
Yes, without the explicit exception that is probably the case.
It's a 100% propability.
But as Thomas described it to FSFE and myself, this was not the intention of
the Roundcube community which wanted to enable proprietary modules & skins.
Hence the exception.
> I think the AGPL makes it harder for commercial entities to use RoundCube.
> These entities include plugin developers, web hosters, theme designers,
> etc..
Please note that we *are* a commercial entity, and prefer the AGPL.
I'm a commercial entity as well and I still contribute to open source. Most of my clients allow me to open source a lot of things as well. We open source it using very liberal licenses (not GPL). No one wants to be forced to contribute. I personally contribute when the circumstances permit it. Which is why I don't base my work on *any* GPL-licensed software. LGPL is as close as I get.
Till
But as stated, the exception gives explicit permission for proprietary modules
and skins, but does not allow to make the Roundcube core itself proprietary.
The only difference between GPLv3+ and AGPLv3+ in this case is whether or not
providing users with the service counts as distribution.
AGPLv3 says yes, GPLv3 says no.
As stated, our preference is for AGPLv3, and for no proprietary exceptions.
But we understand the majority prefers GPLv3, and proprietary exceptions, so
we're willing to accept that in order to allow the community to move forward