I’m just wondering what the license terms will be for the blog module? I believe NewBlog is presently licensed as GPL. Will the blog module produced by this project continue to be GPL or will it be BSD style like the rest of DNN?

 

Can one take a GPL codebase an un-GPL it?

---

Due to my previous job, I have a high level of paranoia regarding license terms. So, please forgive me for taking this question to a very deep level.

 

Is there a version of the NewBlog Module or is the DNN version of the module available in Source Code with a BSD License? Can I get a BSD licensed version today? or is the only source availble the GPL version?

 

 

 

I would like to use the NewBlog module and to make some customizations to it. However since it was released under the GPL license I believe that making any changes to this source  (even minor changes) and incorporating in my web site may legally bind me to make all of the source code to my site public under the GPL terms. (I know this is an extreme view of GPL, but I prefer to look at this carefully before I touch any GPL code).

 

Please see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

 

2. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

 

…

 

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

 

Since NewBlog is a DNN Module which is deployed as a library, why wasn’t it originally released under the L-GPL license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php)? My understanding is that the L-GPL license has less restrictive terms and is meant to be used when a library component is to be released, but the L-GPL clearly defines that the rest of the system is not subject to the GPL license.

 

One last totally paranoid note: If the DotNetNuke core team has used the NewBlog Module and made modifications to it, and that is being used in DotNetNuke.com, does that imply that the GPL terms of NewBlog now supersede the BSD terms of DotNetNuke itself?

Now, I am not an Intellectual Property attorney and I am not an expert in this field, but has the DNN core team consulted an IP attorney about this? Is there any definitive guidance?

 

Thanks for your patience and any insights you have.

 

---

Although I am not intimately familiar with the details of the agreements between DNN core and HP, here is my explanation of it-

A copyright gives rights to a developer when software is authored. This means that HP has copyrights in the NewBlog module.

The copyright owner can allow others to do things that would otherwise infringe his copyright. This includes the normal use we usually associate with software and modules, copying onto your computer, changing code, deploying to servers etc. This is done through releasing the work subject to a license. The license has terms that impose restrictions on what you can do to the work.

As I understand it, HP allowed the community to use his code under a GPL license. Granting certain rights and imposing restrictions.

What has happened now, under the DNN Subproject agreements, is that HP has assigned to DNN the status as copyright owner in the work which is now the Blog module. This means there are now 2 different copyright works out there, with 2 different copyright owners.

HP will still have copyrights over his Newblog module, and can still allow the community to use the module using the GPL, or any other license.

DNN now has copyrights in a SEPARATE work, which is the now Blog module. Although they retain some common code, they are now considered 2 separate copyright works. DNN now will release the code of the Blog module under a BSD license. Allowing people to use work, but on different terms to the GPL terms.

That's my overview of it all. I probably have got some of the facts wrong, but I hope that helps the understanding of how the copyrights and licensing in the Subprojects might be working.