Features / Usability

Features / Usability

LGPL and 1.9 modules: Licensing in general

posts: 104


I'm reading a lot of mails like: this doesn't get implemented, because it's not LGPL compatible.

From the original GNU site:

GNU Lesser General Public License, or GNU LGPL for short.

This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend it for special circumstances only.

Between version 2 and 2.1, the GNU LGPL was renamed from the GNU Library General Public License to the GNU Lesser General Public License to better reflect its actual purpose. Namely, it is not just for libraries, and the GNU GPL is sometimes more appropriate for libraries.

To me this means: TikiWiki 1.9 is now able to integrate a module with ANY license it likes, escpecially phpBB.

There are numerous posting about e.g. the forum and phpBB being much better, but being unable to integrate as it's not licensing compatible. To me this is wrong. I also don't find a wiki page giving a clear statement about how TikiWiki is handling third party plug-ins now. This would definitely help and encourage people to adopt code to interface with TikiWiki. Even worse, there isn't even a copyright and licensing statement on tw.o main page!!!

Currently it's still the 1.8 mentality: a closed all-in-one single-license project.
But it's no longer true for 1.9, right?

Please help me and others understand the whole licensing stuff with TikiWiki by simple linking a "Licensing" page to the main page, at least in the "About TikiWiki" section.

What do you think?

posts: 1549 Canada
Please see LibLicense
posts: 104

> Please see LibLicense

No offense!
I see, that you wrote this text, but it really misses some points of my original posting:

  • It is NOT on the main page! (I found it already, but only by using the search engine)
  • It does NOT state or encourage other to interface with the "generic" TikiWiki engine
  • It does NOT explain, why GPL is not allowed for some/all parts of TikiWiki (referencing to "many discussions" doesn't help, you might want to do a summary of the discussions on LibLicense)

It should make more points clear, Not everybody nows the details of (L)GPL. Maybe you need a FAQ about licensing biggrin

And it doesn't answer the question, why other projects, like phpBB, are not allowed to even interface as a module or additional option.

Don't get me wrong: I understand why you can't integrate GPL code in the core of TikiWiki! (This is pretty clear), but there is NO reason to not use GPL code for a plug-in alternative (this is probably one of the reasons why other CMS systems with this kind of architecture are that popular).

(Ah, and BTW: an impressum/contact on the main page wouldn't be bad either)

I like TikiWiki a lot! And I see these kind of discussions often, but every discussion is simple ended with a statement like "it's licensing incompatible". No further explainations, why, etc. Then the discussion is dead.
This simple blocks you and others from using or enhancing TikiWiki and might very likely not help with the progress of future TikiWiki enhancements. Which would be a bad thing.

That's mainly what I'm fearing ...