The module currently ships with a copy of xmlsitemap.xsl, which is licensed under the LGPL by BacouBonneville http://www.baccoubonneville.com

The documentation makes no mention (that I saw) about a possible dual licensing also allowing distribution of this code under the GPL.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#7 sitemap_1000174.patch1.6 KBfgm
Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

apaderno’s picture

Project: Drupal.org site moderators » XML sitemap
Version: » 6.x-2.x-dev
Component: Licensing » xmlsitemap.module

I am moving the issue to the project queue.

I am not sure which version of the project contains that file, nor if the file is still included in the last release.

fgm’s picture

Issue tags: +Legal

Still present in HEAD, DRUPAL-7--2-0-ALPHA2 and -BETA1 as well as the various DRUPAL-6--2-0-* versions.

Tagging for Legal.

Dave Reid’s picture

The original library has been significantly modified (by my own work) to ease use with the module and work with jQuery rather than its own JavaScript. Furthermore the library is unmaintained (no updates since 2005). Once I took over maintainership of the module and re-evaluated this code, I had e-mailed the author about the situation, but never heard back. Hence it's my belief that it is a derivative work that the code is fine. I left the original copyright/LGPL in the XSL file, so if I need to remove/change/update that, please let me know.

apaderno’s picture

It is true that a derivative work of a LGPL code is still under LGPL License, but it is also true that LGPL License is compatible with GPL License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html).

About the files available from third-party sites that can be committed in drupal.org repository, we have some exceptions and I think this case is included in those exceptions (the committed file has been changed, and the original file is not anymore developed).

Crell’s picture

"We had to hack it to bits to make it work" is one of the usual grounds for an exception to the "no 3rd party code" rule, which seems to apply here. LGPL is also in-bound compatible. From a Legal standpoint this looks fine to me, and maintaining the original copyright statement is polite and proper.

Actually technically you're supposed to include the original copyright/license block and add your own as well, which would be preferred. See section 2.2 of:

http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

So I think all that needs to be done here is some minor tweaks to the docblock in question. Otherwise it looks fine unless the Infra folks have any other specific objection.

Dave Reid’s picture

fgm’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review
FileSize
1.6 KB

How about a license addendum like this patch, then ?

Dave Reid’s picture

Status: Needs review » Fixed

Thanks! Committed #7 to CVS.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)
Issue tags: -Legal

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.