interpreted language specific open source license ?

[Matthew Garrett]

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 13:43 +0100, Herko Coomans wrote:

> XOOPS' PHP modules could be considered plugins. This FAQ entry explains 
> some of the possibilities, but does not address the interpreted laguage 
> use of 'plugins'. This is where GNU.org mentions the dynamic linking.

Yes. The text you quoted is the FSF's metric for determining whether
something is a derived work or not.

A license covers the material that is released under it. The GPL says
that any derived work of that material must also be released under the
GPL. The FSF believes that plugins of the sort the FAQ discusses are
derived works. The modules that you discuss may or may not be derived
works. If they are, then they must be released under the GPL. If they're
not, then the GPL doesn't cover them, and it's unlikely that any license
that attempted to cover them could be considered an open source
license[1]

So what your question effectively boils down to is "Are XOOPS modules
derived works of XOOPS", and that's something you'll probably need to
ask a lawyer. As I said, if you ask the FSF they'll give you their
opinion.

[1] As I said, point 9 of the Open Source Definitions says that a
license "Must not restrict other software". A license that attempted to
cover works that weren't derived works of the software under the license
would be restricting other software. 
-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org