Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

[Martin Larsen]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Wow. A WINDOWS programmer. So you've been programming for what - 15
years, maybe? And you've programmed for ONE OS? Wow.
>
And you wrote an interpreter? Golly, Gee, Batman. I guess that makes
you an expert on everything! ROFLMAO!

Excuse me, but why are you flaming like this? Did I ever call myself an
expert? Did I ever use bad language or something? Did I ever call you
stupid things? Was I ever impolite?

I really can't understand why so many people in these newsgroups are so
hostile to each other. I think you should apologize, but I don't expect
that you will.

The terminology they
use is not important. The fact your tools ARE derivative works is.

Aha. A fact?

Then please tell me why it is a fact.

Sincerely,
Martin

[Andy Hassall]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:40:02 +0200, Martin Larsen
<martin+spamfre e+larsen@bigfoo t.comwrote:

>And now to my question: Is there a way to contact the PHP Group directly?

According to license.txt in the PHP distribution:

"The PHP Group can be contacted via Email at group@php.net."

I wonder if you might have more luck with Zend, the company behind the core of
PHP (the Zend engine). Since this includes the compiler + bytecode interpreter
anyway, they should be well-placed to answer.

http://www.zend.com/company/contact_us

Have you contacted the FSF as well? Since they produced the GPL license, they
may be able to clarify its terms.

>I have an idea that if we could get a "official" statement of the
>linking or non-linking involved, they might be more prone to listening.
>
>And again, I certainly don't want the PHP Group or any other to comment
>on the good or bad of plugins being GPL because that is entirely
>irrelevant. I just sincerely believe that their technical resoning is
>entirely wrong.

If it were "libraries" then I'd interpret it as "dynamic linking" in the
context of the GPL. This seems to be backed up with the already-quoted:

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

"Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the
interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with
many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes.
These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked
together.

A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes
in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way,
regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the
combined Perl or Java program will run on."


Introducing the term "plugin" seems to point to the following, though:

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

"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to
each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program,
which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the
plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a
GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be
followed when those plug-ins are distributed."


There does seem to be a valid distinction between a library, which implements
a particular function and makes that available to /any/ other application that
loads it, versus a plug-in that explicitly extends one application - which
makes the argument of "derivative work" plausible.

It's not entirely clear, so it's an interesting question.

--
Andy Hassall :: andy@andyh.co.u k :: http://www.andyh.co.uk
http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space :: disk and FTP usage analysis tool

[Martin Larsen]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Andy Hassall wrote:

According to license.txt in the PHP distribution:
>
"The PHP Group can be contacted via Email at group@php.net."

Thanks!

I wonder if you might have more luck with Zend, the company behind the core of
PHP (the Zend engine). Since this includes the compiler + bytecode interpreter
anyway, they should be well-placed to answer.

I think you are right, Zend would be a good source of info.

It's not entirely clear, so it's an interesting question.

Indeed it is.

Thanks for your comments. After getting flamed by Jerry, it was a
pleasence to read a decent post like yours :-)

Martin

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Martin Larsen wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>

>Wow. A WINDOWS programmer. So you've been programming for what - 15
>years, maybe? And you've programmed for ONE OS? Wow.
>>
>And you wrote an interpreter? Golly, Gee, Batman. I guess that makes
>you an expert on everything! ROFLMAO!

>
Excuse me, but why are you flaming like this? Did I ever call myself an
expert? Did I ever use bad language or something? Did I ever call you
stupid things? Was I ever impolite?
>

You came across as arrogant and self serving. If you weren't trying to
prove yourself an expert, why come up with all of that junk?

I really can't understand why so many people in these newsgroups are so
hostile to each other. I think you should apologize, but I don't expect
that you will.
>

Probably because you came across as self-serving and arrogant. And no,
I won't apologize for your arrogance.

>The terminology they use is not important. The fact your tools ARE
>derivative works is.

>
Aha. A fact?
>
Then please tell me why it is a fact.
>

You want legal advice, talk to an attorney. Any one who is familiar
with computer law will tell you the same thing.

But I know you won't.

Sincerely,
Martin

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Sanders Kaufman]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Martin Larsen wrote:

>Excuse me, but why are you flaming like this? Did I ever call myself
>an expert? Did I ever use bad language or something? Did I ever call
>you stupid things? Was I ever impolite?
>>

>
You came across as arrogant and self serving. If you weren't trying to
prove yourself an expert, why come up with all of that junk?

Sheesh, Jerry! You do this a lot. Your blood sugar gets out of whack
or something and you go BALLISTIC on some poor fool.

Not all of us are here to prove that we're experts.
Some of just like having conversations about things we're interested in.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Martin Larsen wrote:

>

>>Excuse me, but why are you flaming like this? Did I ever call myself
>>an expert? Did I ever use bad language or something? Did I ever call
>>you stupid things? Was I ever impolite?
>>>

>>
>You came across as arrogant and self serving. If you weren't trying
>to prove yourself an expert, why come up with all of that junk?

>
Sheesh, Jerry! You do this a lot. Your blood sugar gets out of whack
or something and you go BALLISTIC on some poor fool.
>
Not all of us are here to prove that we're experts.
Some of just like having conversations about things we're interested in.

Why - because someone comes here looking for free legal advice, has no
idea about the terminology he's using, then brags about what an expert
he is?

If he wants legal advice, he should see an attorney. This newsgroup is
for discussing PHP programming, not whether Joomla or any other product
is within its legal rights.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Toby A Inkster]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

However, they are developing a product to interface to Joomla, and one
which uses Joomla code. The Joomla people have every right to determine
licensing rights to anyone who uses their code.

I agree, but the OP stated that the plugin didn't use a single line of
Joomla code, which changes things completely.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 32 days, 22:45.]

Parsing an HTML Table with PEAR's XML_HTTPSax3

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/20/html-table-parsing/

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Toby A Inkster wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>

>However, they are developing a product to interface to Joomla, and one
>which uses Joomla code. The Joomla people have every right to determine
>licensing rights to anyone who uses their code.

>
I agree, but the OP stated that the plugin didn't use a single line of
Joomla code, which changes things completely.
>

No, but does it require Joomla to run? Does it call their API's?
Require changes to their modules?

Or is it completely standalone (in which case there wouldn't be any
licensing issues)?

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Anonymous]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>
Toby A Inkster wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

However, they are developing a product to interface to Joomla, and one
which uses Joomla code. The Joomla people have every right to determine
licensing rights to anyone who uses their code.

I agree, but the OP stated that the plugin didn't use a single line of
Joomla code, which changes things completely.

>
No, but does it require Joomla to run? Does it call their API's?

Irrelevant.

Or is it completely standalone (in which case there wouldn't be any
licensing issues)?

As long as what Toby wrote is true (that the plugin does not use any
Joomla code) there is no licensing issue.

Try to look at it from a different angle: If you want to give a program
you wrote the ability to shut down the computer, do you need to own the
rights to Windows or ask Microsoft for permission to use the ExitWindows
function?

Bye!

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Anonymous wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Toby A Inkster wrote:

>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>However, they are developing a product to interface to Joomla, and one
>>>which uses Joomla code. The Joomla people have every right to determine
>>>licensing rights to anyone who uses their code.
>>I agree, but the OP stated that the plugin didn't use a single line of
>>Joomla code, which changes things completely.
>>>

>No, but does it require Joomla to run? Does it call their API's?

>
Irrelevant.
>

Not at all. Joomla is quite within their rights to say if your code
interfaces to them, it must meet certain conditions - like GPL.

>Or is it completely standalone (in which case there wouldn't be any
>licensing issues)?

>
As long as what Toby wrote is true (that the plugin does not use any
Joomla code) there is no licensing issue.
>
Try to look at it from a different angle: If you want to give a program
you wrote the ability to shut down the computer, do you need to own the
rights to Windows or ask Microsoft for permission to use the ExitWindows
function?
>
Bye!

If it interfaces to Joomla, it uses their code.

And actually, yes, you need permission to use the ExitWindows function
to call it. But read your compiler license. It specifically gives you
permission to do so.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Anonymous]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

No, but does it require Joomla to run? Does it call their API's?

Irrelevant.

>
Not at all. Joomla is quite within their rights to say if your code
interfaces to them, it must meet certain conditions - like GPL.

No. The person using my program together with Joomla must have the right
to use Joomla and the right to use my program. Nothing more and nothing
less. Calling Joomla functions from within my program only makes my
program useless for people not wanting to use Joomla or adhere to its
license.

As long as what Toby wrote is true (that the plugin does not use any
Joomla code) there is no licensing issue.

Try to look at it from a different angle: If you want to give a program
you wrote the ability to shut down the computer, do you need to own the
rights to Windows or ask Microsoft for permission to use the ExitWindows
function?

>
If it interfaces to Joomla, it uses their code.

No, it doesn't. It just calls a function which is unavaliable. If the
function is unavaliable my program does not run. That's it. If Joomla
happens to have functions that have the same name and make sense in the
context so that my program actually does something useful, that's great.
But that does not make my program a part of Joomla or Joomla a part of
my program.

To get this straight (so that no one can misunderstand): Of course, if I
provide a ready to use package which contains Joomla plus my program I
have to put the whole package under the GPL. Because I would not have
the right to do so without accepting the GPL.

However, if I choose to provide my program in a nonfunctional single
package which only contains my code I can choose to use any license I
like. And users who want to use my program and put Joomla and my program
together will have to abide by both li

>
And actually, yes, you need permission to use the ExitWindows function
to call it. But read your compiler license. It specifically gives you
permission to do so.

LOL! And in what way, shape or form could IBM/Borland/the GCC
team/insert compiler company of your choice here give me a license to
call code that was written by Microsoft?

Nope, the same principle I described above also works here: I don't need
to ask anyone if I am allowed to call a function called ExitWindows. If
my program just stops because such a function doesn't exist, that's bad
luck for me. If it does exist, that's fine, but doesn't make my program
part of Windows.

The user is responsible for bringing together a valid Windows license
(and thus a legally owned copy of the user32.dll which contains this
function) and my program (of course just as legally licensed by my
terms).

If what you say were true Microsoft could simply forbid anyone to
program for Windows because it is practically impossible to program for
Windows without using any Windows API.

Your technical advice is usually very good (even though a bit uppity at
times) but you don't seem equally well versed in the judicial side of
technology.

Bye!

[Toby A Inkster]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Toby A Inkster wrote:

>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>

>>However, they are developing a product to interface to Joomla, and one
>>which uses Joomla code. The Joomla people have every right to determine
>>licensing rights to anyone who uses their code.

>>
>I agree, but the OP stated that the plugin didn't use a single line of
>Joomla code, which changes things completely.

>
No, but does it require Joomla to run? Does it call their API's?

Irrelevant. My newsreader (PAN) requires Linux to run (actually it can be
compiled for several operating systems, but the copy I have is compiled
for Linux, so needs Linus to run). It calls Linux APIs.

As it happens, Linux and PAN *are* both released under the same licence
(the GPL), but they don't have to be.

Require changes to their modules?

This is relevant.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 33 days, 12:21.]

Parsing an HTML Table with PEAR's XML_HTTPSax3

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/20/html-table-parsing/

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Anonymous wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>

>>>No, but does it require Joomla to run? Does it call their API's?
>>Irrelevant.
>>>

>Not at all. Joomla is quite within their rights to say if your code
>interfaces to them, it must meet certain conditions - like GPL.

>
No. The person using my program together with Joomla must have the right
to use Joomla and the right to use my program. Nothing more and nothing
less. Calling Joomla functions from within my program only makes my
program useless for people not wanting to use Joomla or adhere to its
license.
>

>>As long as what Toby wrote is true (that the plugin does not use any
>>Joomla code) there is no licensing issue.
>>>
>>Try to look at it from a different angle: If you want to give a program
>>you wrote the ability to shut down the computer, do you need to own the
>>rights to Windows or ask Microsoft for permission to use the ExitWindows
>>function?

>If it interfaces to Joomla, it uses their code.

>
No, it doesn't. It just calls a function which is unavaliable. If the
function is unavaliable my program does not run. That's it. If Joomla
happens to have functions that have the same name and make sense in the
context so that my program actually does something useful, that's great.
But that does not make my program a part of Joomla or Joomla a part of
my program.
>

Which means your program requires Joomla to run. Your attempt to
rationalize will not hold up in court, IMHO. It's like saying "I was
out practicing my shooting and he just happened to get in the way of a
bullet".

To get this straight (so that no one can misunderstand): Of course, if I
provide a ready to use package which contains Joomla plus my program I
have to put the whole package under the GPL. Because I would not have
the right to do so without accepting the GPL.
>

No problem.

However, if I choose to provide my program in a nonfunctional single
package which only contains my code I can choose to use any license I
like. And users who want to use my program and put Joomla and my program
together will have to abide by both li
>

Yes. But if you want to call Joomla functions you have to abide by
their requirements to use those functions.

>And actually, yes, you need permission to use the ExitWindows function
>to call it. But read your compiler license. It specifically gives you
>permission to do so.

>
LOL! And in what way, shape or form could IBM/Borland/the GCC
team/insert compiler company of your choice here give me a license to
call code that was written by Microsoft?
>

Check your licenses.

Nope, the same principle I described above also works here: I don't need
to ask anyone if I am allowed to call a function called ExitWindows. If
my program just stops because such a function doesn't exist, that's bad
luck for me. If it does exist, that's fine, but doesn't make my program
part of Windows.
>

Tell it to the judge.

The user is responsible for bringing together a valid Windows license
(and thus a legally owned copy of the user32.dll which contains this
function) and my program (of course just as legally licensed by my
terms).
>

Tell it to the judge.

If what you say were true Microsoft could simply forbid anyone to
program for Windows because it is practically impossible to program for
Windows without using any Windows API.
>
Your technical advice is usually very good (even though a bit uppity at
times) but you don't seem equally well versed in the judicial side of
technology.
>
Bye!

And you come here looking for free legal advice, then throw out anything
which you don't agree with.

I suspect Joomla has done something you haven't - consulted an attorney.
I suggest you do, also. Otherwise you might find yourself in big
legal trouble.

Although IANAL, I believe you will find I am much more well versed in
the legal side than you think.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Toby A Inkster wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>Toby A Inkster wrote:

>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>However, they are developing a product to interface to Joomla, and one
>>>which uses Joomla code. The Joomla people have every right to determine
>>>licensing rights to anyone who uses their code.
>>I agree, but the OP stated that the plugin didn't use a single line of
>>Joomla code, which changes things completely.

>No, but does it require Joomla to run? Does it call their API's?

>
Irrelevant. My newsreader (PAN) requires Linux to run (actually it can be
compiled for several operating systems, but the copy I have is compiled
for Linux, so needs Linus to run). It calls Linux APIs.
>
As it happens, Linux and PAN *are* both released under the same licence
(the GPL), but they don't have to be.
>

>Require changes to their modules?

>
This is relevant.
>

No, it isn't, Toby. You have a license to call Linux API's, and that
license does not require PAN (or any other program) to be open source.

Linux itself is GPL - but its license does not require programs calling
its APIs to be GPL. Joomla is taking that one step further and
requiring programs using its API to be GPL.

Perfectly within their rights.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Toby A Inkster]

Re: Are PHP libraries linked dynamically or statically?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Linux itself is GPL - but its license does not require programs calling
its APIs to be GPL. Joomla is taking that one step further and
requiring programs using its API to be GPL.
>
Perfectly within their rights.

But what they seem to be claiming is that the GPL itself demands that all
plugins must be GPL'd, and I disagree with that interpretation.

Yes, it is well within their rights to demand that plugins are GPL -- but
then they are enforcing conditions over and above what the GPL requires.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 33 days, 19:14.]

Parsing an HTML Table with PEAR's XML_HTTPSax3

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/20/html-table-parsing/