Thread

For works that we are extremely fond of we’d likely not even choose a license that allows relicensing as GPL as that could create the potential that a downstream licensee might distribute a derivative of our original work that inherits all of the problems that we see above. And we do of course realize that as lengthy as this article has been, it only scratches the surface of the issues it raises, and likely oversimplifies some issues and gets some things wrong.

http://ellislab.com/blog/entry/gpl_or_not_to_gpl

The above EllisLab comment means, you can’t distribute your CI based application under GPL, because EllisLab dislike GPL. Right?

I can’t understand well the last sentence, because of my poor English skill.

For works that we are extremely fond of we’d likely not even choose a license that allows relicensing as GPL as that could create the potential that a downstream licensee might distribute a derivative of our original work that inherits all of the problems that we see above. And we do of course realize that as lengthy as this article has been, it only scratches the surface of the issues it raises, and likely oversimplifies some issues and gets some things wrong.

http://ellislab.com/blog/entry/gpl_or_not_to_gpl

The above EllisLab comment means, you can’t distribute your CI based application under GPL, because EllisLab dislike GPL. Right?

I can’t understand well the last sentence, because of my poor English skill.

Yep, you understood that well. It means that they just screwed over their community and anyone using Code Igniter will not be able to use any GPL’ed code at all, not even a library based on GPL. Call that cutting of the branch you are already sitting on.

You’d guess they talk with their community first before making a change like that that. I have not seen a real dialogue with the community here. Not even after a week of all the complaints and not even the uservoice which jumped from 0 to 260 votes in just a few days ( http://codeigniter.uservoice.com/forums/40508-codeigniter-reactor/suggestions/2344554-gpl-compatible-non-copyleft-popular-licesne ) seems to be making an impression.
On the contrary, they first change the license, then employ lawyers to find out that they screwed up. But still try to tell us how great OSL is. “Do not take this as legal advice. Ask your lawyer if you want to be sure’. Yeah, right.

The kind of one-way ‘communication’ shown here (Top->down) seems to be typical. You want to discuss with us? We make announcements.

Lets see when the forums start being censored or people get attacked asking for a more compatible license than OSL.
All this just because someone said ‘I do not like GPL. Let’s make the new license deliberately incompatible, too’. Applause! (yes, I am being cynical).

An counter-example of a license change:

Here is how the people at Ruby changed their license:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/216010

They announced it in advance, asked for feedback, even listened and did some reconsideration and changes. THAT is a community.

Thank you deckard.

Yep, you understood that well. It means that they just screwed over their community and anyone using Code Igniter will not be able to use any GPL’ed code at all, not even a library based on GPL. Call that cutting of the branch you are already sitting on.

You’d guess they talk with their community first before making a change like that that. I have not seen a real dialogue with the community here. Not even after a week of all the complaints and not even the uservoice which jumped from 0 to 260 votes in just a few day ( http://codeigniter.uservoice.com/forums/40508-codeigniter-reactor/suggestions/2344554-gpl-compatible-non-copyleft-popular-licesne ) seems to be making an impression.
On the contrary, they first change the license, then employ lawyers to find out that they screwed up. But still try to tell us how great OSL is. “Do not take this as legal advice. Ask your lawyer if you want to be sure’. Yeah, right.

The kind of one-way ‘communication’ shown here (Top->down) seems to be typical. You want to discuss with us? We make announcements.

It is serious problem that EllisLab seems to discount the community. It makes the relationship between EllisLab and the community worse.

Today, EllisLab suddenly has begun to assert that CodeIgniter License is incompatible with GPL. I have never seen the opinion by EllisLab before.

http://ellislab.com/forums/viewthread/202562/#946360
The comment by Derek Jones on 22 October implies approval to use GPL with CodeIgniter License.

In fact, EllisLab gives silent approval to use GPL for years.

But today, suddenly, EllisLab says that CodeIgniter License is not compatible with GPL, so all CI based applications under GPL is a violation of GPL. And it is your fault, I don’t know about. I can’t do anything because license issue will be a judge or ruling copyright authority in the location you reside that will interpret and render a judgement, not the copyright holder or author of the license.

This means discarding current GPLed project with one sentence. It seems to me that EllisLab lacks honesty.

Why does EllisLab hate GPL so much?

deckard and kenji I think you guys missed this statement in that post:

The CodeIgniter license is not compatible with the GPL. We’re not talking about OSL 3.0 here, we are talking about the simple license we have used for CodeIgniter from the very beginning.

So if the original wasn’t compatible and the new one isn’t then really nothing is changing in those regards.

Derek Jones

Much of the point of this article was to highlight that most in the development community that conclude that they want or need “GPL compatibility” as defined by the FSF don’t actually perform due diligence or understand the issues.  That evidence was clear when we looked at some CI applications and libraries that were being distributed under the auspices of being GPL licensed.

I’ll earmark your comment re: MIT/BSD for consideration during Friday’s roundup if the discussion leans that direction, but today’s topic as part of Software License Awareness Week is focusing on licensing issues in general surrounding the GPL.

http://ellislab.com/blog/entry/gpl_or_not_to_gpl

This means EllisLab could rethink the license? If so, it is very good.

deckard and kenji I think you guys missed this statement in that post:

The CodeIgniter license is not compatible with the GPL. We’re not talking about OSL 3.0 here, we are talking about the simple license we have used for CodeIgniter from the very beginning.

So if the original wasn’t compatible and the new one isn’t then really nothing is changing in those regards.

I am not sure what you think we are missing. Isn’t there the motion on uservoice that users wish to change the license to something GPL-compatible? Where does that exclude that the current license is already screwed up?

I am worried. What do you expect if your stance in the past has been: ‘Don’t worry about it’. See posts from Phil and Derek in this uservoice:

http://codeigniter.uservoice.com/forums/40508-codeigniter-reactor/suggestions/1824139-less-restrictive-license

Do you really think the past negligence of EllisLab to take license matters any serious isn’t a huge part of people being upset right now?

Changing to OSL means that we are not able to use any GPL components in a CI application in the future. It means all current projects using CI in connection with GPL libraries are in violation.

The question is if EllisLab will rethink their change to OSL and instead use a more appropiate license and so keep to their promise “Don’t worry”. So, will they?

deckard and kenji I think you guys missed this statement in that post:

The CodeIgniter license is not compatible with the GPL. We’re not talking about OSL 3.0 here, we are talking about the simple license we have used for CodeIgniter from the very beginning.

So if the original wasn’t compatible and the new one isn’t then really nothing is changing in those regards.

Thanks, but we read the sentences.

There were a lot of people who believed that CodeIgniter License was compatible with GPL. Because EllisLab gave silent approvals to using GPL.

If it is not compatible with GPL, why did not EllisLab say so earlier?
Why do they use it like a submarine patent?

There were a lot of people who believed that CodeIgniter License was compatible with GPL. Because EllisLab gave silent approvals to using GPL.

If it is not compatible with GPL, why did not EllisLab say so earlier?
Why do they use it like a submarine patent?

They actually never changed what or how they gave approval. It is just that when the OSL license was announced people started complaining about it not being GPL compatible.  Which in turn is why it was probably noted in that last blog post that even the existing license wasn’t compatible. Which no one seemed to ever complain about. 

Question:  CI’s files were suddenly changed after being an EllisLab license all these years, to OSL 3.0 in the Git repository.  Kohana was a fork of CI.  It now has a BSD license.  If I fork CI, can I just change the license to GPL or MIT or whatever I’d like?

Question:  CI’s files were suddenly changed after being an EllisLab license all these years, to OSL 3.0 in the Git repository.  Kohana was a fork of CI.  It now has a BSD license.  If I fork CI, can I just change the license to GPL or MIT or whatever I’d like?

Kohana was relicensed because it went through a complete rewrite. When it was originally forked it had to adhere to the existing license at that time.

So wouldn’t the files in the repo now need to remain under the existing license too then?  It certainly isn’t a completely rewrite.

So wouldn’t the files in the repo now need to remain under the existing license too then?  It certainly isn’t a completely rewrite.

The people who forked CI didn’t own the rights to CI either. EllisLab owns the rights to CI and can license however they choose. I may not agree with their selection, but it’s their right, despite contributions from others.

So wouldn’t the files in the repo now need to remain under the existing license too then?  It certainly isn’t a completely rewrite.

EllisLab owns the rights to CI and can license however they choose. I may not agree with their selection, but it’s their right, despite contributions from others.

That is simply and plainly wrong. Copyright always stays with the contributor and it was only contributed under the current license. I yet have to see a list of past contributors or hear any statement about if/how they got agreement from those for the license change.

Which no one seemed to ever complain about.

Good example of developers trying to be attorneys at law this time :]

I’m not against the OSL 3.0 license itself, but in all fairness I’m not a big fan of the decision to choose a license that the “majority” seems to have a problem with. But who knows..? It may not be as bad as people seem to make it.
It’s not like I ever read the contents of the LICENSE.txt file within the framework anyway ;]

I build products and I give my trust in that EllisLab won’t interfere with my product(s), unless I’m doing something utterly stupid as claiming the framework to be of my own… derp!
Otherwise I’m gonna sue them for being a meany (unless they pay me a beer as settlement) :[