To be more precise: My day job is working with the CMS #TYPO3, which is licensed under the "GPL 2 or later". The Boilerplates and Kickstarter, which I use to create new extensions, also set this license. But I have no idea if this is required or if I can use a different license. And is this license consistent with the phrase that the code I create belongs to the employer or customer, which can be found in many contracts?
@ProvenPudding Thanks. But one sentence in particular opens up new questions:
"Extensions are essentially modifications of the original source code."
🤔 Why? Who defines that.
I never thought, I would modify the original source with my extensions. Modify the behavior: yes. Use the APIs, deliverd by the original source: yes - But modify it? Would not have expected that.
@ProvenPudding@ramsey Thanks again. That really makes some things more clear. But now I have a new questions. What is a compatible licence and do I always need to check a package's licence before I install and use it, because it may be conflicting with other licences in my project? And do I have to validate the licence did not change, before I update a package to a newer version? 😨
@ProvenPudding@koehnlein The sentence is confusing, but I understand why it’s focused on modification, since that’s how many understand licenses.
The GPL says anything that “links against” GPL code must also be infected by the GPL. Since no extension is truly standalone and must call out to code that is licensed under the GPL, that is considered “linking against,” so the extension must also allow users the same rights (i.e., be licensed under the same terms).
@ProvenPudding@koehnlein The ownership question (you mentioned earlier) is different. If you’re building the extension for an employer, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction, either the employer or you own the copyright on the code, even though the license must allow users the same rights as the GPL.
BTW, the license doesn’t have to be the GPL, as long as it allows end users the same rights as the GPL. In practice, most just use the same license.
@ProvenPudding@koehnlein If your extension uses other code libraries, it’s okay for them to use more permissive licenses, like MIT or BSD, as long as the licenses don’t put restrictions on the code that would conflict with the rights the GPL allows.
@ramsey@ProvenPudding@Konafets Would it be GPL compatible to publish my code under my own licence that says "do everything just like GPL v3 says + send me some cookies in December" ? 🤔
@koehnlein@ProvenPudding@Konafets You could make that request of users, but you couldn’t restrict their use of your software if they don’t honor it. This is the same as whether you charge a fee for the software, which the GPL allows you to do, but you can’t restrict the user’s rights to redistribute your software for free, after they’ve gained access to the source. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee
@ramsey@ProvenPudding@Konafets Interesting. I actually remember a case where we had to pay 100 € to get a download link for a GPL licensed shop software.
@koehnlein@ProvenPudding@Konafets Typically, to avoid any questions of improperly following licenses, anyone selling GPL software usually sells access to the software, rather than selling the software itself.
This doesn’t necessarily mean you can choose to distribute your extensions under these licenses, but it might mean you can use code licensed under any of these licenses within your extension, as long as your extension uses terms like the GPL.
@koehnlein The GPL itself. It’s basically the whole idea of the GPL and CopyLeft to influence the derived work avoiding become closed source again just because you changed something on the original code. An T3 extension is always a derived work from the TYPO3 codebase because it used their APIs, therefore it’s always GPL and always open source.
@Konafets@ProvenPudding What does that "... always open source ..." mean to all the contracts, that say the code will be the property of customer or employer?
Add comment