Siebrand Mazeland wrote: The GPL restriction on linking with non-GPL code is irrelevant for a non-compiled language, when all we're distributing is the source code. I could find nothing in the GPL that contradicts this interpretation. Even for mixed-license projects written in C, it's legal to distribute the source code, just not the compiled binaries. -- Tim Starling

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Siebrand Mazeland <s.mazeland(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: Is it including all of trunk/ here, or just trunk/phase3/? There's almost certain to be no problem if it covers all of trunk; it's probably random tools that aren't directly connected to MediaWiki. It doesn't seem to say what it thinks the conflict is . . . On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: The license doesn't contain the word "link" anywhere in it, and draws no distinction between compiled and interpreted code (except that you have to provide the source code regardless). Section 2 of the GPLv2 states "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions . . .". No modification or distribution of modifications (in source or binary form) is allowed except under the terms of that section. Moreover, it goes on to say: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." I.e., as long as we're distributing the whole thing as MediaWiki, it all has to be GPL-compatible, whether released in source form or binary form. If there are some bits that have more *lenient* licenses, that's okay, but you can't have terms that prohibit you from distributing them under the GPL. Note that our README file has long stated that all modifications (including extensions) must be GPL-compatible: "The contributors hold the copyright to this work, and it is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later[1] (see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html). Derivative works and later versions of the code must be free software licensed under the same or a compatible license. This includes "extensions" that use MediaWiki functions or variables; see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins for details." This doesn't appear to be the case from my reading of the license, or of the FSF's FAQ on it. The only additional requirement for binaries is that you have to provide source code as well.