views:

493

answers:

5

Quick Question.

I am doing a conversion of JavaScript code licensed by GPL (and not created by me) into PHP. Does the original GPL stand or can i put any license on the converted code?

I found this on SO, but wondering if it applies.

+1  A: 

If you are the original copyright owner, then you can release a copy or a modified work under any license you like. That doesn't change the license of the previously released software of course.

1800 INFORMATION
I am not the original author or owner. And i am only worried about the converted code.
Ólafur Waage
As always I am not a lawyer but it looks like the linked conversation would apply
1800 INFORMATION
1800 INFORMATION, are you sure that GPL doesn't apply to the original copyright owner? I thought that once a work is released under GPL, there's no way out from it, but I may be mistaken. Can you point to some reference?
Joonas Pulakka
@mad-j: you are a bit confused. The original author cannot take back the code licensed under GPL, but he/she can license the same code under another license as well... even proprietary terms with big money involved.
Laurent
@Laurent: Ok, thanks! I was a bit confused indeed :)
Joonas Pulakka
This is one way that organisations that do not want to use GPL code can proceed, if the original copyright owner will relicense it to them on different terms
1800 INFORMATION
+2  A: 

Translation won't remove copyright. Think about decompiling binary code of Windows to Pascal for example and then recompiling it. You think Microsoft wouldn't come after you? :)

I think the correct way is to either:

  • Study the code and produce a technical specification of it. Then use this spec to rewrite the code. If you are paranoid, these tasks can be done by different people. (Companies have been known to do this)
  • Or credit the original author and keep the license. (Your code is a derivative work)

These suggestions may not be absolutely correct, but they are suggestions that don't get you into trouble. Before considering anything controversial you should at least read:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

abababa22
IANAL, but AFAIK in case of software, copyright is limited to *automatic* translation.
vartec
I'm waiting for you to try that with Windows. When Steve Ballmer "f*ing kills you", I'll say "I told you". :)
abababa22
1. why should I? 2. why should US law apply to me?
vartec
Things are different in the east bloc of course. Have a nice day now. :)
abababa22
My Q does not specify country, and Iceland is not in the EU :P But the code will be used (or can be) world wide.
Ólafur Waage
Ólafur: right, I always mix-up EU, EEC and Schengen ;-)
vartec
Ólafur: your question does not specify country, but the copyright law that applies is the law of country where you live. And since copyright law aren't at all straightforward and differ so much from country to country, there cannot exist "universal" answer.
vartec
+5  A: 

IANAL, but if you are not the original author, then your PHP version will need to be GPL.

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.

So porting a js library to php would count as a modification of the original, and then you are bound by the license to release the modified code under GPL.

Copyright may be dumb and apply only to the text, but if you have loaded the original into your computer to view it, you've copied it (at least under UK law, copyright applies to digital copies).

That act of copying was done under license and if you don't keep within terms of the license you are already in breach of copyright, whether or not you make further derivative copies.

Pete Kirkham
A: 

You embed the GPL into an LGPL application or module, that is not just a wrapper++; This new module will be LGPL and you can cleanly use an LGPL module without spreading out. That's what our License Lawyer told us.

I trust my Lawyer, but that doesn't mean you should blindly trust my Lawyer :)

Robert Gould
so called "GPL condom" ;-)
vartec
Even you shouldn't trust a guy who claims that you can change license in code authored by other people.http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper
abababa22
I'd rather trust a lawyer, than a freak who puts tin-foil hat on his head
vartec
@vartec You seem to have some anger issues. No need to freak out if people disagree with you on internet. :D
abababa22
@abababa22 that's why I said "is not just a wrapper++", a wrapper isn't enough, I specifically was referencing that point
Robert Gould
@ababada: anger? you haven't seen anger. Now what I don't like is ppl believing and repeating FUD. "GPLWrapper" and infection by dynamic link have no base in the copyright whatsoever.
vartec
@Robert: isn't enough according to court ruling or according to ppl with tin-foil hats?
vartec
@Vartec according to my Lawyer, he's a GPL specialized lawyer, so I trust him about the wrapper isn't enough part. Basically you have to sacrifice something to avoid the spreading. But if you keep the code server side only and work with the software asservice model you don't have to share your code
Robert Gould
@Robert: your lawyer is cautious, which is good thing. But there are real life counter-examples. For example MySQL change license of libmysqlclient from LGPL to GPL. Yet you have MySQL client libraries in OpenSource like PHP, Python, etc. GPL didn't infect them.
vartec
@Robert: it's generally believed that dynamic linking is derivate work boundary, although many lawyers are extremely cautious about it, until there's a clear cut court ruling.
vartec
See first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court
vartec
+11  A: 

This really should never be considered as a legal question. It's really about doing the right thing.

Before looking at the legal side of things, first think common sense and politeness to the original author. Legal aspect should really come as a second thought.

Licensing the work resulting from your "translation" under the GPL would certainly be the best way to handle that.

The JavaScript software you are using as a starting point was "given" to you by its author under the GPL, and the best way to thank him/her for the gift is to give your own contribution under the GPL license.

Now if for some reason the GPL is not possible for you, then you really have two options:

  1. Contact the original author and get his/her approval for your plan and the license you want to use on your own code. The original copyright holder could even allow you to either make a proprietary derivative of this original work or to license it under both GPL and another open-source license of your choice to work-around any GPL restriction you may have.
  2. Do not start from that code, and create your own PHP software independently from the JavaScript implementation but re-using the idea you've learned from reading the JavaScript code. Re-using ideas from GPL code is a valid way to thank the original author whatever license you use.
Laurent
We are working under a rule that we can not use GPL code. And we are working on item #1 :) Very nice answer btw.
Ólafur Waage
+1, for adressing both legal and "don't be evil" issues. :)
abababa22