kilishan - 27 October 2011 10:55 PM

It seems to me that is the crucial part. Even extending a core library (MY_* files) is not modifying the original work, it’s simply linking to it and including it in our own applications. To me, this means everything we do, unless it is modifying the core files, is free from the viral nature and we can do whatever we want with it.

And since the application folder’s contents are licensed AFL, that means those files can be modified and redistributed (which we all do with every app) and put under any license we need to.

Actually AFL does NOT mean you can put it under license you want to - Rosen also does not write that anywhere. Rosen also does not define if GPL is compatible to AFL and there is only one source at all claiming compatibility on the net.

Also seeing it from the GPL side does not make it compatible at all because either the package is GPL-compatible as whole or it isn’t. Having that one folder under AFL (even it might be compatible, which i doubt) doesn’t cut it for the GPL. Having it all under AFL might be different.

It has also been expressed a couple times here: OSL/AFL is more like the AGPL in terms of the ASP loophole. That means that if you provide services with your application written based on CI you might have to provide your source code to the users. Bye, bye business.

This (still uncommented) license change is creating a very uncertain situation for all CI users. Just this discussion might refrain potential interested parties from using CI at all currently. I hope EllisLab listens to all these concerns and voices from their user base and changes to a more compatible license.

Regards

Deckard

FSF says:

The Academic Free License is a free software license, not copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL. Recent versions contain contract clauses similar to the Open Software License, and should be avoided for the same reasons.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#AcademicFreeLicense

AFL

1 c) to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, under any license of your choice that does not contradict the terms and conditions, including Licensor’s reserved rights and remedies, in this Academic Free License;

“any license of your choice that does not contradict the terms and conditions, including Licensor’s reserved rights and remedies, in this Academic Free License”

This means you can not choose GPL if the code is AFL, I think.

@deckard, kenji and others.

Your discussion about licensing is irrelevant.

It is clear to most of us that Ellislab’s intention is to allow developers to use and extend the framework but we must also acknowledge their ownership and copyright of the framework core.

Regardless of what you think is legal or not, any court would look at the INTENT of the copyright holder if it ever became a legal issue.

You can apply any license to your own code that you choose and that will not affect Ellislab’s rights to their license or you to yours.

kilishan - 27 October 2011 10:55 PM

While any tricky situation would definitely be left to the lawyers

Lawyers have the benefit that they actually can give you feedback from the legal side. Only the law is written in english does not mean that the terms are the same you commonly use as a programmer. Lawyers can read the legal code and explain it. Would be good to see how a lawyer would comment your broad statement, maybe you can contact one on your behalf?

kilishan - 27 October 2011 10:55 PM

It seems to me that [OSL 1(c)] is the crucial part. Even extending a core library (MY_* files) is not modifying the original work, it’s simply linking to it and including it in our own applications. To me, this means everything we do, unless it is modifying the core files, is free from the viral nature and we can do whatever we want with it.

The OSL is not about linking, as Rosen writes, he prevents using that term and refers explicitly to the legal code in the US Copyright Law. So whether something is linking or not is not crucial. The important part is if you’re creating a derivative work based on CI or not. And that’s referring to the definition of a derivative work under copyright law.

The “unless it’s modifying core files” is not really a test that you’ve created a derivative work or not. Copyright is a bit more complex in that area. The easiest route is that you put your code under OSL as well as it’s a reciprocal license, then you don’t have these legal hassles.

kilishan - 27 October 2011 10:55 PM

And since the application folder’s contents are licensed AFL, that means those files can be modified and redistributed (which we all do with every app) and put under any license we need to.

Well, I’m pretty sure Derek has not checked if the files he put under AFL are a derivative work or not. Because it’s highly likely that those files (or some of them) actually are a derivative work based on CI. I still try to find an US lawyer who can speak about this more clearly, but the good part is that the files in the application folder are a very concrete code, so this should be possible to find out in the end with a clear outcome. In case those are a derivative work (and from all information I’ve got so far those are and you should at least expect your application(s) could be one as well), as CI is under OSL, those files can not be licensed under AFL. The OSL would not allow such an action. So the current status quo is ambiguous either for the files with the AFL license headers, or those with the OSL headers or both.

And I don’t find Derek’s position clear as well. He says that some files are not a derivative work, but others are. It’s not clear to me where and why he draws a line between those. The only difference I see is that those files are placed in a different folder and have a different license plate. But it’s not clear what makes them different to each other and if the license plates are correct, which is already being questioned.

And you should really read the OSL 3.0 explained document you linked, Rosen explains the license which should have made clear that it’s not about linking. He also has published a book about Open Source Licensing in general (http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm) which is a good read if you want to understand Rosen’s legal positions.

wiredesignz - 28 October 2011 05:57 AM

Regardless of what you think is legal or not, any court would look at the INTENT of the copyright holder if it ever became a legal issue.

I thought that courts normally don’t look for the intent but for the license itself, and I think it was Rosen himself who wrote that courts tend to argue against licensors in such a context.

wiredesignz - 28 October 2011 05:57 AM

You can apply any license to your own code that you choose and that will not affect Ellislab’s rights to their license or you to yours.

Anyway, the intent of the OSL is clear, you must put derivative works under OSL as well. So please don’t create the image, this would not be the case.

Regardless of what you think is legal or not, any court would look at the INTENT of the copyright holder if it ever became a legal issue.

I wish that was always the guiding rule, but at least in Canada, it is not. Here’s a specific example that I don’t think would withstand this legal examination. I released BambooInvoice under the GPL. I haven’t evolved it too much over the years, but recently I’ve started re-writing parts of it. If I wanted to move it to CI3, i explicitly could not legally do so under the same license, as OSL and GPL are not compatible. I don’t think anyone disputes this (certainly the GPL lawyers are very clear).

I don’t think it was anyone’s intent to prevent me from releasing Bamboo 2.0 under the license I originally chose, but I just couldn’t see it withstanding any real, legal test.

I don’t object to a license change philosophically, particularly an OSI recognized one, but this particular choice seems to restrict my freedoms; where I believe the intent was to more clearly articulate them.

wiredesignz - 28 October 2011 05:57 AM

You can apply any license to your own code that you choose and that will not affect Ellislab’s rights to their license or you to yours.

How about if I’m using GPL library in my apps? The library is not my code.
The author of it could have a different option to you.

How about Open Source Project which releases CI based product under GPL?

There are more people, not only EllisLab and me.

The license change will make many developers quit using CI and
many new developers seeking a framework will avoid CI because of the unknown copyleft license.

Indeed, I can’t recommend CI under OSL.

EllisLab wants it?

Wow, That was fast. Wikipedia already lists CodeIgniter as using the OSL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License

kilishan - 28 October 2011 07:47 AM

Wow, That was fast. Wikipedia already lists CodeIgniter as using the OSL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_License

Any mention of CI on wikipedia has changed to OSL for v3.0.

But CodeIgniter doesn’t use OSL. The development branch can use the “I like Chickens” license and it doesn’t actually mean anything until it’s released.

That means… wait for it… WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG!

Woah.

Dennis and Killshan - I just edited the wikipedia page to state v3.0 because until that version is released it will still be under the existing license.

Phil Sturgeon - 28 October 2011 07:58 AM

But CodeIgniter doesn’t use OSL. The development branch can use the “I like Chickens” license and it doesn’t actually mean anything until it’s released.

That means… wait for it… WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG!

Woah.

Actually, Phil, I think this is where things can get very grey. With it being an open source license and developed where the public can download every change, doesn’t that make any change committed as being released? Not trying to be a dick here, but did notice that the license was actually changed in the develop branch on the 20th so anyone who develops against edge is now technically beholden to that license. And quite a few of like to keep our projects relatively current to edge.

True but if you’re going to say that “CodeIgniter is X” most people will assume you are talking about the current version.

That is exactly the same as saying “CodeIgniter is currently on version 3.0” purely because that is the version number in the development branch.

It will be, but it is currently not.

Eric Barnes - 28 October 2011 07:58 AM

Dennis and Killshan - I just edited the wikipedia page to state v3.0 because until that version is released it will still be under the existing license.

Okay? Thanks for the information (/sarcasm off)

If the framework gets a bad License (which is still uncertain as of yet), I guess we’ll just have to switch to something else, but I’m sure that EllisLab isn’t interested in pushing developers away?!

And while we’re at it, what’s so good about OSL?
I “love” this part of the license in section 9:
If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.
That basically means we can’t fork/clone CI for redistribution on any public version control systems such as github.com

Yay ! (/sarcasm off again)

kilishan - 28 October 2011 08:05 AM

the license was actually changed in the develop branch on [october] the 20th so anyone who develops against edge is now technically beholden to that license. And quite a few of like to keep our projects relatively current to edge.

Not if you don’t take that specific commit by taking care about the files / changes you take in on the licensing side. It’s still very easy to fork it w/o being bound to OSL at the current state and keeping current. And it will be for a longer time.

In the end, this is something the developers decide, not EllisLab. But it would be nice to see EllisLab and the developers on the same side.