gpl

A couple days ago, I posted CMS Report's Top Ten Stories of 2009. The articles listed were ranked by popularity based by how many times viewed and the rate that they were viewed through the year. Popular stories do not always signify well written articles or are always an indication of personal favorites. Each year, I write a number of content management or IT related articles that I love but for various reasons you the people didn't have interest in reading and sharing.

Below are some of my favorite articles written in 2009 that were not a part of the previously posted Top Ten list. If I had a Top 20 Stories list the articles in both of these listings would be included.

• Looking forward to Microsoft's Windows 7
• Reviewing Barrie North's Joomla! 1.5 book and video
• The problem is bigger than SharePoint
• Testing the water with Acquia Search for Drupal
• Shortcomings of Enterprise Wiki Deployments
• Two CMS Worlds on Twitter
• Charging for online news doomed to fail
• Theme development and the GPL
• Judging Five Overall Best Content Management Systems
• Quoting IT: Addison Berry

Some of the most intense debates I've seen in the open source community have been discussions covering what is or what isn't required by the popular open source license, the GNU GPL. For example, it is common practice in the open source CMS market to distribute themes that include the templates (the code) under the GPL and the artwork (including CSS) under a different license. Under the GPL, is this practice legal or not?

On opposite ends of the GPL debate are staunch supporters for and against the GPL. Someone usually argues that distributed theme packages for a GPL licensed CMS must always be distributed under the GPL. To do anything else would be illegal. Another person will usually argue that the time and money the theme developer put into a theme gives him or her the right to distribute the theme any way they wish. When the discussion has finally reached this level of completely opposing views, the sparks will fly.

This time around it was the Wordpress community that found itself asking the various legal questions. Matt Mullenweg of Wordpress asked the Software Freedom Law Center for some legal clarification on the GPL issue. Today, Matt posted an article with the law center's response and provides his own input too. The truth can be found somewhere in the middle.

Development of the SMFforum Integration module for Drupal is no longer.  Amy Stephen over at OpenSourceCommunity.org pointed out on her blog that the module's project  leader, "vb", pulled the module due to licensing disagreements with SMF LLC.  Amy references vb's original post at the Drupal forum, but she has a lot more to say.  Amy's an active participant in the Joomla! community, a community which had their own issues with a bridge between Joomla! and SMF.

According to vb's post, an email sent by Michael "Oldiesmann" Eshom, Project Manager, Simple Machines LLC stated that:

The problem isn't with the smfforum.module file or the packages distributed on drupal.org. The problem is with the "smf_api_subs.php" file that you're distributing as part of the smf api package - it contains modified versions of several SMF functions, and you did not ask for permission to use this code or distribute it.

It appears that Simple Machines LLC doesn't have so much of a problem with bridging SMF and Drupal as much as they have issues with their own code being used without proper permission.  The Simple Machines License clearly states that "Any Distribution of a Modified Package or derivative requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC."  No word on whether Simple Machines LLC would endorse the use of their code if permission is asked.