Why is this related to GPL?

[mic]

http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic ... #msg884981

..... Something else I was thinking about is that if you have some extension that in the future is dropped by the developer, you can release the code (if it is GPL) to another developer to continue on development ....

Just for my understanding (and maybe many others here): what has this to do with GPL?
If i want, i am always allowed to hire another developer to continue/go ahead/enhance the (orginal) work.

I guess the 2 main points here are:

• hiring (in context of paying/spending money for someone)
• not releasing the code to the public

If you look at Mamboforge (because it exists much longer then JoomlaForge) you will find many, many 'extensions' which are orphanded.
The only thing i am always wondering myself is, that many people are taking these old extensions and want them to be maintened and are angry if nobody wants todo the work for 'free beer'.

GPL is means also: pay the price for quality, there are too many extensions out, released under GPL which never should have been released (under any license).

[mcsmom]

Just for my understanding (and maybe many others here): what has this to do with GPL?
If i want, i am always allowed to hire another developer to continue/go ahead/enhance the (orginal) work.

No. If the copyright holder of an extension has not released it under a license that allows modification of the work you are most certainly NOT allowed to hire someone to make modifications without permission from the copyright holder.

GPL or a similar license make this possible.

[mic]

Just for my understanding (and maybe many others here): what has this to do with GPL?
If i want, i am always allowed to hire another developer to continue/go ahead/enhance the (orginal) work.

No. If the copyright holder of an extension has not released it under a license that allows modification of the work you are most certainly NOT allowed to hire someone to make modifications without permission from the copyright holder.

GPL or a similar license make this possible.

Not if it will not be published or do it only for myself (also not publishing it).

No license in the world can forbid me this right - also not the GPL.
I can also work in Windows (or any other proprietary) - if i can.

And if i (or any developer) will work on it) - the author will never know about that.
Who will argue with what

Just for my understanding (and maybe many others here): what has this to do with GPL?
If i want, i am always allowed to hire another developer to continue/go ahead/enhance the (orginal) work.

No. If the copyright holder of an extension has not released it under a license that allows modification of the work you are most certainly NOT allowed to hire someone to make modifications without permission from the copyright holder.

GPL or a similar license make this possible.

Not if it will not be published or do it only for myself (also not publishing it).

No license in the world can forbid me this right - also not the GPL.
I can also work in Windows (or any other proprietary) - if i can.

And the author will never know that his work is rewritten because it will never be published - what then?

[mcsmom]

Look, you have to let your conscience be your guide.

You most certainly have a misunderstanding if you think that it is not possible for a license to prohibt you from modifying a program.

Whether you chose to violate the terms of a license or whether it is actually easily possible for you to do so are entirely separate issues.


It is also possible for me to drive my car 100 miles/hour. That does not make it legal, even if no one every finds out that I do it.

[mic]

Look, you have to let your conscience be your guide.

You most certainly have a misunderstanding if you think that it is not possible for a license to prohibt you from modifying a program.

Whether you chose to violate the terms of a license or whether it is actually easily possible for you to do so are entirely separate issues.


It is also possible for me to drive my car 100 miles/hour. That does not make it legal, even if no one every finds out that I do it.

To quote your example: if i drive your car on my own property i cannot violate any law!.
And it is legal.

So, if i hire a developer/or do it myself to work on a none GPL-licensed work, and the result is not for the public, where do i violate what?

[brad]

To quote your example: if i drive your car on my own property i cannot violate any law!.
And it is legal.

Depends what country you are in... do you disturb the neighbors? Break any other laws in the process?

Some licenses DO NOT allow you to modify the code. In any case, aren't we getting off track here?

[mcsmom]

If it's my car and you are driving it without my permission you most certainly are.

To put this sort of back on topic, this is why it is important to actually read the terms of licenses and not to rely on opinions from people of unknown qualifications give on a forum.

This is why over and over we are posting that people should consult a knowledgeable professional about their specific situations. People find that advice frustrating, but this thread is an excellent example of how misinformation is spread.

[mic]

If it's my car and you are driving it without my permission you most certainly are.

To put this sort of back on topic, this is why it is important to actually read the terms of licenses and not to rely on opinions from people of unknown qualifications give on a forum.

This is why over and over we are posting that people should consult a knowledgeable professional about their specific situations. People find that advice frustrating, but this thread is an excellent example of how misinformation is spread.

The car was not my idea ...

Getting back to my unanswered question: against which law is it, if any script (no matter which license) will be edited, reworked and not published?
I am asking to avoid any misinformation!

[mcsmom]

THe license matters.

For some licenses yes it is against the law.

For other licenses it is not.

All gpl compatible licences fall in the latter category.

[aoirthoir]

Mic,

These issues have been ongoing for years. There are cases where you can buy the code for a program and you are allowed in that case to modify the code for your own use, with no distribution allowed. There are also cases where the program is the code (as in PHP programs) and some of these licenses forbid modification. However, you will find many of the proprietary developers' licenses do allow for private modifications. (Vimes's extensions for instance).

There are many things that licenses allow and many things that they forbid. For example some extension developers licenses allow running their extension on only one domain name, which is beyond the traditional restriction of running a program on only one computer. You are always better off fully reading and understanding the license of any software _before you purchase it_. Then in most circumstances you are better off following that license.

It is true that you might get away with violating the license. However, if the copyright holder finds out about violations, they have the ability to seek compliance. Since we are talking about proprietary licenses (as the GPL license allows modifications so it is a non-issue there), understand that typically renumeration for the violation is what would be sought. Even if you win the court case, should it go this far, you would face high costs for violating the license in attorney's fees, time spent away from your business, court filing fees and other such things.

This is why you will find most professional businesses will simply buy an additional license to run software on other computers, since doing so is less costly. If you find that you need to make modifications to extensions most of the time, the course of wisdom would dictate that you not purchase extensions that are encrypted (since you cannot modify the code) nor purchase extensions whose licenses forbid modification. Typically though if the extension is not encrypted, I think you will find that most developers will be fine with you modifying their code for personal use only. If you have any doubt contact the developer and get it in writing.

As usual, please contact your own attorney for accurate recommendations on the specifics of your situation. Her advice may vary from what we have said here.