Re: JS-files should be MIT-licensed

Quoting Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>:

> See my post on horde@ ... currently, some of our javascript files  
> are labeled as GPL/LGPL, which can potentially cause issues for a  
> service provider.  Since it can be argued that since you are  
> distributing part of the GPL-licensed code, you have to provide  
> access to all of the code.
>
> We should go through and ensure all code is labeled as MIT licensed  
> and/or re-license as appropriate.

Researching this more... it does appear that the generally accepted  
view is that distributing javascript to the browser is NOT  
distributing the *entire server-side* code, under the terms of the GPL.

See, e.g. https://drupal.org/licensing/faq/ (Drupal's take on the situation).
-and- the fact that the Affero GPL was designed for this purpose (use  
of web-service requires ALL server-side code/changes to be made  
available):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

It's a stickier situation though with the requirements of distributing  
the JS file itself when sent to the browser.  i.e. If you serve the JS  
software in compressed form, you are most likely required under the  
GPL to release original source.  Which shouldn't be an issue (it is  
directly linkable/accessible on default installs).

So still not sure what my conclusion is.  Although going through this  
exercise makes me realize that we DO need to provide some sort of link  
to original source in our minimize packages.  So that will be the  
first step.

michael

___________________________________
Michael Slusarz [[email protected]]

-- 
dev mailing list
Frequently Asked Questions: http://wiki.horde.org/FAQ
To unsubscribe, mail: [email protected]