On 4/8/06, Gazoduc email@example.com wrote:
What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content
managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ?
The right licensing scheme is the one that you prefer.
Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the
CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ?
Essentially? Yes. The GNU GPL (and it’s important to include GNU in
front of it because there are other General Public Licences out there)
is a Share Alike licence. The GNU GPL v2 does not allow for any
restriction above and beyond what (severe) restrictions are already in
the GNU GPL v2. The GNU GPL v3 will allow for some additional
restrictions, but not many, and it has philosophical positions that many
people (myself included) make it an untenable licence as currently
If some people contribute to the code could it still be
double-licenced so that the people who would want to use it in
proprietary applications could pay for a license (thus financing the
work on the CMS) ?
I think that you fundamentally misunderstand the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL
requires that I distribute modifications to your software released under
the GNU GPL to the people to whom I give binaries and that I not
restrict them from distributing it further (either binary or source
form). If you release WBCMS (World’s Best CMS) under the GNU GPL, Evil
Ltd. can take that and modify it on their site to their hearts’ content.
They do not have to give you back their modifications, or give their
modifications to anyone who does CMS-related work on Evil Ltd.'s
website. If they sell WBECMS (World’s Best Evil CMS) to a customer,
though, they have to give the customer the source code and they cannot
restrict the customer from giving away the binary or source to anyone
The GNU GPLv3 has a clause in it which essentially indicates that if you
release WBCMS with a source download link, downstream users MAY NOT
REMOVE that source download link, and the source download link must
point to their modified source. This is but one of many untenable things
in the GNU GPLv3.
Why did Typo choose the MIT license ?
I can’t really answer that, but I can offer a guess, related to why
PDF::Writer is under the MIT licence:
I don’t want to restrict the choices of my users. I have made a
moral choice to allow my software to be used as needed. I like
it when my users communicate back with me and contribute code
(as they have done, and will hopefully see light of day soon),
but I see no reason by which I should force them to give me code
or open other code because they are using my library as a subsytem.
I also have fundamental disagreements with the politics and lies
surrounding GNU GPL advocacy and the political preamble in the GNU GPL
itself, even though I have no problem with a Share Alike licence.
- cons and pros of GPL
- add-on, plugin license if base application is GPL
- Why MIT license for Rails, Ruby and Typo ?
Note: Ruby is not currently under an MIT licence. It’s just not solely
under the GNU GPL.