Licence, GPL, LGPL

Let’s say i have an LGPL opensource project.
I would like Tattoo be one the elements of this project.
As Tattoo (ok MOdx) is in GPL, i think that avoids me to do what i said in the second line (ie i can’t package Tattoo in a LGPL project).

Just would like to have the confirmation.

I may be wrong but i think the only solution is to offer my LGPL project first and :

1. i explain my users i can’t package Tattoo as it’s in GPL, so i invite my users to download Tattoo separetly and provide my users my customizations of Tattoo to integrate it into the LGPL project. Do my customizations have to be in GPL also ? i know it depends of what we are talking about in Tattoo, so the purpose is to have the answer for each part of Tattoo (core, module, plugin etc)

OR

2. another way is, as i can’t package Tattoo directly, that’s my LGPL installation process which downloads Tattoo and "configure it"

Good question. What does your distribution do, out of curiosity?

I think if your code modifies the core, and you distribute it, the viral nature of the GPL takes over. This is why we’ll be offering the 1.0 rewrite release (free of such similar restrictions) as either LGPL or BSD or other such similar licenses.

Quote from: rthrash at Aug 22, 2006, 01:51 PM

Good question. What does your distribution do, out of curiosity?

I think if your code modifies the core, and you distribute it, the viral nature of the GPL takes over. This is why we’ll be offering the 1.0 rewrite release (free of such similar restrictions) as either LGPL or BSD or other such similar licenses.

That’s borderline FUD. GPL is not any more "viral" (whatever that means anyway) than the LPGL. If you make changes to any MODx code, and then redistribute it, you’re obligated to redistribute your changes as well. It’s as simple as that. It does not at all impact any applications/application logic you’ve written using the MODx code at all.

To be brief, i will take a shortcut by saying it’s an inspired work of Lotus Notes.
Anyway, i were thinking of Tattoo as the base of a software client.
The Tattoo "backend" would be dedicated to designer and administration purposes while a front-end built upon Tattoo would be the user client.

I completly forgotten that the licence were planned to be changed for release 1.0. Thanks for correcting my failing memory.

This change will be a huge advantage for Tattoo against the competitors out there... by the way, i’m again impressed and that solves the existential problem i had on Tattoo

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

Just using MODx to contain or manage your content doesn’t mean you have to make your application GPL. But if you pull out some of the code, say from the parser, and use it in your application then you do.

Yes, there are commercial add-ons for GPL products as an example.

Regarding my needs, the problem is different as the purpose is to package Modx in a project which is in LGPL.
Apparently, regarding Ryan talks here, which is a problem with Modx won’t be with Tattoo.

Quote from: vbrilon at Aug 22, 2006, 03:18 PM

If you make changes to any MODx code, and then redistribute it, you’re obligated to redistribute your changes as well. It’s as simple as that. It does not at all impact any applications/application logic you’ve written using the MODx code at all.

Yep, but redistribute the changes is not a problem to my mind, the problem is it has to be released in GPL ... again ...

Quote from: guizmo at Aug 22, 2006, 03:49 PM

Yep, but redistribute the changes is not a problem to my mind, the problem is it has to be released in GPL ... again ...

How is having to release your modifications to MODx (or Tattoo when it becomes available) as GPL a problem? Are you saying you think you would have to release your library as GPL because it involves calls to the MODx API’s? If so, that is not true in my understanding. If it required core MODx files to be modified, then you would need to distribute the modified MODx as GPL and your library as LGPL; but otherwise, I don’t understand the issue being debated.

Just to prove a point, say I change my mind and decide to release my 1.0 rewrite of MODx (or Tattoo, or whatever you want to call it) under GPL after all. What real advantage does that give to anyone other than someone wanting to redistribute and profit from that code without publishing their changes to it? Let me answer that as well: none. And I’d just as well not have my code, improved or not, taken over by an organization or individual, and then sold as a commercial product by that organization or individual, without the changes being published back out as open-source. The reason for this is simple: if that happens, my investment in creating the thing in the first place is at risk; the proprietary offering could potentially render my offering obsolete. I want to share my work and the ability to profit from it, but I think it reasonable to expect those who decide to use it, improve upon it, or package it up and sell it for money, to adopt the same philosophy, at least in regards to their use of that work.

Hmmm, I may have just convinced myself to release all my work under GPL from now on, and avoid any BSD fiascos.
:-\

I may have just convinced myself to release all my work under GPL from now on, and avoid any BSD fiascos.
Undecided

Yep. And I think you should stick to this conviction. "L" stands for "less". Guizmo gave a clue when mentioning Lotus Notes (a strictly commercial app): He wants to use "Tattoo" as a base for his own appl without suffering the "viral" consequences. And he describes it not in more detail - I argue - to prevent potential concurrence between his "Lotusx" and MODx to become obvious. It’s just a guess, though, and I’m not a lawyer - but I can’t detect another motive. Maybe Guizmo corrects me - but as far as I understand, that’s what this is about...

Quote from: guizmo at Aug 22, 2006, 03:49 PM

Quote from: vbrilon at Aug 22, 2006, 03:18 PM

If you make changes to any MODx code, and then redistribute it, you’re obligated to redistribute your changes as well. It’s as simple as that. It does not at all impact any applications/application logic you’ve written using the MODx code at all.

Yep, but redistribute the changes is not a problem to my mind, the problem is it has to be released in GPL ... again ...

Why is this a problem? You receive the MODX code under the GPL license. Your *application* can be under any license you want it to be -- hell you could make your application be a closed-source binary. The only thing you’re obliged to redistribute under the GPL is the code you obtained from someone else *OR* any changes you made to existing GPL code.

I am truly confused why people have a problem with this, and I am not trolling at all. Please explain why this is an issue for you.