MyBB Hacks

Licenses are a PITA when you don't understand them (lol) and being a non-native English speaker doesn't make things easier either.

May somebody (try to) answer this?:
Can I use GPLv3 code in LGPL sofware maintaining the LGPL license, if so, how?
Apache License v2 seems to be GPLv3 compatible. If I do want to write plugin that uses code under the Apache license, what are the requirements fo it? Do i have to add a line before each code stating I took it from a Apache licensed software?

Lets say I write a function, function();, I have it coded and pasted in a .txt file in my desktop. Today I copy it and paste it in a GPLv3 licensed script, can I copy it tomorrow from the .txt file and paste it in a non-free script?

Very confusing when I do like releasing plugins and sometimes I do want to modify other free plugins to no write my own code ¬_¬

.. If I modify a Apache 2.0 licensed script can I released it under the same license with no problems?

I do use the GPLv3 license when I use other people code (control_object(); ), I don't mind. But when it comes to inserting GPLv3 code in a plugin that is not meant to be all free, or when I want to edit a plugin under the Apace 2.0 license, that is GPLv3 compatible, it is a pain to understand all of this...

Hopefully somebody here knows about this matter :-/

Most people in the MyBB community don't understand licenses, so it really doesn't matter TBH.
(and it's not like you're going to be slaughtered if you don't follow one of them)

Furthermore, it's debatable as to how licenses really apply on an international scope.  I'll be assuming more typical Western country point of view in the following.  The other point is enforceability - if I deliberately violate your license, it's pointless to you if you can't actually force me to adhere to it.

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]Can I use GPLv3 code in LGPL sofware maintaining the LGPL license, if so, how?

Yes you can - you just include it.  The end user will probably need to follow the GPL part though.

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]Apache License v2 seems to be GPLv3 compatible. If I do want to write plugin that uses code under the Apache license, what are the requirements fo it?

Well you have to read the license for that information, but you can look for a summary I guess.
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apa...http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml#bo

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]Do i have to add a line before each code stating I took it from a Apache licensed software?

No, that would be excessive and absurd.

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]Lets say I write a function, function();, I have it coded and pasted in a .txt file in my desktop. Today I copy it and paste it in a GPLv3 licensed script, can I copy it tomorrow from the .txt file and paste it in a non-free script?

You wrote the code so you have the exclusive right to do pretty much anything with it.

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]Very confusing when I do like releasing plugins and sometimes I do want to modify other free plugins to no write my own code ¬_¬

All these are open source licenses so if you're releasing them as open source, you have nothing to worry about.

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ].. If I modify a Apache 2.0 licensed script can I released it under the same license with no problems?

Yes.

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]I do use the GPLv3 license when I use other people code (control_object(); ), I don't mind. But when it comes to inserting GPLv3 code in a plugin that is not meant to be all free, or when I want to edit a plugin under the Apace 2.0 license, that is GPLv3 compatible, it is a pain to understand all of this...

AFAIK, a "GPL compatible license" means that code under this license can be included in a GPL licensed project (and vice versa).
It's questionable in a scripting environment how components are linked ("derivative") so there might not really be any difference between LGPL and GPL here.

You should be able to put GPL code along with non-free code, if they're aren't considered derivative.  But you probably shouldn't be modifying non-free code anyway

(08-05-2012 11:16 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]if you're releasing them as open source, you have nothing to worry about.

Well I always tend to follow licenses. I don't mind releasing my plugins as Open Source when it is my own code, but the problem comes when I do want to insert other people code into my own and this is not Open Source.

(08-05-2012 11:16 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2012 04:53 AM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]Can I use GPLv3 code in LGPL sofware maintaining the LGPL license, if so, how?

Yes you can - you just include it.  The end user will probably need to follow the GPL part though.

What about using GPL/LGPL in non open source scripts? AFAIU GPL can't, but what about including LGPL? Is it possible?

I had read some comments about whether MyBB premium plugins can really exist (probably from when MyBB was GPL and not LGPL), I will assume than, since premium plugins are included by the MyBB script, there is nothing wrong with them?

(08-05-2012 11:16 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]But you probably shouldn't be modifying non-free code anyway

I don't , or at least no that I intent to release it, I just meant using GPL code into my own that is under a private license (no open source).

* I will assume "Open Source" is the code that you can "read, edit, and redistribute" with no problem (ie: GPL) and not code that is under a private license even if this is free (since most of those allow you to edit but not to redistribute).

(08-06-2012 12:44 PM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]What about using GPL/LGPL in non open source scripts? AFAIU GPL can't, but what about including LGPL? Is it possible?

Yes, the whole point of LGPL is to include a provision to allow inclusion into non-free packages.
Note that you can ONLY do this if the LGPL component is unmodified.  If it has been modified and you distribute it, you must supply all rights granted by the LGPL license to users.

Example:
MyBB under LGPL
- I can add functionality to MyBB and not release it under a GPL compatible license (eg sell product under closed license) - as long as I have not modified MyBB itself

If MyBB is under GPL, I would need to release my modifications under GPL compatible license.

(08-06-2012 12:44 PM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]I had read some comments about whether MyBB premium plugins can really exist (probably from when MyBB was GPL and not LGPL), I will assume than, since premium plugins are included by the MyBB script, there is nothing wrong with them?

Plugins and MyBB aren't the same package, so GPL doesn't magically infest itself into a completely separate package.  Just because a plugin is meant to be used with MyBB doesn't mean it's affiliated with it.  It's possible, for example, to have a plugin which works with multiple forum systems under different licensing schemes.
If I were to distribute MyBB along with plugins with incompatible licenses, for example, then you would have an issue.

(08-06-2012 12:44 PM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't , or at least no that I intent to release it, I just meant using GPL code into my own that is under a private license (no open source).

* I will assume "Open Source" is the code that you can "read, edit, and redistribute" with no problem (ie: GPL) and not code that is under a private license even if this is free (since most of those allow you to edit but not to redistribute).

Note that, in the context of licenses, "free" often refers to open source.  Closed source, or as you call it, 'private license', is generally considered "non-free".  Whether monetary compensation is required to use it is irrelevant.  Open source applications can be sold (eg RHEL), and closed source can be given away without cost.

Generally open source licenses only put restrictions on redistribution.  You are free to do absolutely anything you want with open source applications - minus some things in regards to redistribution.  In the case of GPL (the most restrictive), your redistributing a GPL'd work gives end users the same rights as you do.
If you aren't redistributing anything (ie modifying for private use), then you don't have to worry about any restrictions with open source licenses.

As for non-free licenses, it will depend on the license, but if you're not redistributing the code, it's probably difficult to tell that you've made modifications and ultimately, the owner probably won't care anyway.

(08-06-2012 03:39 PM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2012 12:44 PM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]What about using GPL/LGPL in non open source scripts? AFAIU GPL can't, but what about including LGPL? Is it possible?

Yes, the whole point of LGPL is to include a provision to allow inclusion into non-free packages.
Note that you can ONLY do this if the LGPL component is unmodified.  If it has been modified and you distribute it, you must supply all rights granted by the LGPL license to users.

Example:
MyBB under LGPL
- I can add functionality to MyBB and not release it under a GPL compatible license (eg sell product under closed license) - as long as I have not modified MyBB itself

If MyBB is under GPL, I would need to release my modifications under GPL compatible license.

(08-06-2012 12:44 PM)Sama34 Wrote: [ -> ]I had read some comments about whether MyBB premium plugins can really exist (probably from when MyBB was GPL and not LGPL), I will assume than, since premium plugins are included by the MyBB script, there is nothing wrong with them?

Plugins and MyBB aren't the same package, so GPL doesn't magically infest itself into a completely separate package.  Just because a plugin is meant to be used with MyBB doesn't mean it's affiliated with it.  It's possible, for example, to have a plugin which works with multiple forum systems under different licensing schemes.
If I were to distribute MyBB along with plugins with incompatible licenses, for example, then you would have an issue.

I think that's arguable. If you don't consider plugins "dynamically linked" to the main software, then yes the simple fact that it's not distributed along with the main software is enough for the GPL not to affect plugins. However, if you consider them "dynamically linked" to the main software then the plugins must be distributed under GPL (if MyBB was still GPLv3 of course). Now, if you ask me who determines what's "dynamically linked" and what's not...I guess I haven't found any certain answers on the internet, especially official answers from courts/lawyers/FSF.

(08-10-2012 06:59 PM)Pirata Nervo Wrote: [ -> ]I think that's arguable. If you don't consider plugins "dynamically linked" to the main software, then yes the simple fact that it's not distributed along with the main software is enough for the GPL not to affect plugins. However, if you consider them "dynamically linked" to the main software then the plugins must be distributed under GPL (if MyBB was still GPLv3 of course). Now, if you ask me who determines what's "dynamically linked" and what's not...I guess I haven't found any certain answers on the internet, especially official answers from courts/lawyers/FSF.

No, they're separate packages so licenses can't have any effect.
What would happen if I wrote a plugin which integrates with multiple forum systems under completely different licenses?  Which do I respect?
Linux is GPL.  Most things that run on Linux would have to dynamically link something there at some point.  Does this mean that every single thing that runs on Linux must be GPL compatible?

Intention of being used with something != inclusion with it.

I don't think you understood what I meant. You can read more here if you wish:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13946...http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1394623/can-i-dynamically-call-a-lgpl-gpl-software-in-my-closed-source-a

No, I think you misunderstand.
The first response said pretty much what I said:

Quote:if you package up your application in an installer and include copies of GPL'ed or LGPL'ed executables in the installer, then you're distributing LGPL'ed or GPL'ed code and must make copies of the source code available

The license can only apply if you package it up as one.  If you're not distributing a plugin along with a GPL work, there is no need to make this plugin GPL.

Ah yes I misunderstood you sorry.