Tuesday 21 March 2006 by
When it’s released, Textpattern 4.1.x will be published under the BSD license.
BSD is the original license used for Textpattern’s earlier gamma releases. Textpattern 4.0.x and some earlier RC releases haven been published under the GPL. The license on the 4.0.x branch will remain as it is now.
The BSD license is OSI approved as an open source license. It allows everything the GPL does—freely using, copying, modifying and redistributing the software—but with fewer restrictions. In particular, the BSD license doesn’t prohibit linking with code published under a different license.
The main reasons for the change are:
1. The GPL prohibits non-GPL plugins and add-ons. We don’t think that suits Textpattern. We want users to decide which plugins are acceptable, not the Free Software Foundation.
2. The meaning of the GPL pretty much boils down to “whatever the FSF says it means
This is a great idea. BSD is a much simpler license to work with.
23 Mar 06
ramanan
Good work. It’s great to see a community orientated piece of work dive even further into the realm of the user/designer/coder.
Congrats guys! (The BSD license IS way simpler than the GPL)
23 Mar 06
Aaron T.
No joke. It’s simple. Less than a 30 seconds of reading and understanding. Bravo!
23 Mar 06
Brandon Erik Bertelsen
Congrats on realizing how nasty the GPL is for environments such a PHP and deciding to do something about it!
That said, I don’t think that the GPL matters one bit for plug-in authors in scripted environments. The whole premise of the GPL is that copyright protections are sufficient and that the GPL’s terms need only be accepted if one wishes to violate copyright by distributing copies of the work. No copying takes when a plug-in is developed, distributed, or loaded, so copyright is irrelevant along with the GPL and any debate about what constitutes linking. Simple as that, no lawyers required.
(Compiled environments are more complicated, read the GPL FAQ for guidance in determining when a “DLL” constitutes a derived work)
IANAL. YMMV. CYA. Ciao!
23 Mar 06
Bryce
Bryce: the GPL FAQ claims that plugins are required to be released under the GPL, because they share memory space and functions with GPL’d software.
That’s been an issue in many plugin environments. This discussion seems to confirm it’s the case with Wordpress, for example. Slashcode announced a special exception to the GPL for plugins. Both are scripted environments.
25 Mar 06
Alex
I’m pretty sure this has gotta be a good idea – I think the re’s one area that really requires clarifying – the issue of commercial resale.
Before, there was seemingly a gray area (at least, in some people’s minds) surrounding whether or not TXP could be used as a framework to contain custom-built code that would be sold for profit.
Are we now in a situation where we can write applications that use TXP as a basis for commercial sites (including the use of custom application code) without being forced to release this code under the GPL?
This is my assumption; I’ve mentioned it here as it’s been asked many times on the forums.
27 Mar 06
Nik
Alex, I think the Slashcode announcement goes to my point. They did not add the Linking Exception to the Slashcode license, nor did they update the documentation or FAQ to state that non-GPL plug-ins are permissible. The announcement merely states their opinion that non-GPL plug-ins are OK.
I really don’t want to detract from the greatness of your announcement by inciting a GPL riot. I’ve stated my case on my own web site, anyone that wishes to may aim their flamethrowers directly at me.
27 Mar 06
Bryce
Nik: it’s never been the case that the GPL forces you to release code to the public. It does require that you provide your code to your client(s) under the GPL, and without any other restrictions, but you don’t have to give it to anyone else. The FAQ mentions this.
Bryce: the Slashcode announcement reminds me of the salesman who says “you can ignore the fine print, it doesn’t apply to you”. It might be fine when the stakes are low. But developers’ opinions aren’t worth much when it comes to legal matters. We don’t want to say “we think this is ok”, we want to say “we know this is ok”.
29 Mar 06
Alex
I disagree with some of your points; I think the GPL would be a fine license for TextPattern to continue with.
What I do agree with is that the BSD license is fine also. Thanks for keeping it free software, guys, and getting everyone’s input and cooperation.
12 Apr 06
Ben Finney
I think it should be noted that the BSD license is used as amendend in 1999, that is, that the Textpattern License is the Modified BSD License.
Or is it not?
Just my 2c.
05 May 06
Mariano Absatz (el Baby)
It would be great if these posts had a year on them. This GPL to BSD and back again thing is confusing.
21 Sep 06
Lloyd D Budd
Non-free software is unethical. It is a shame to see textpattern support unethical software :-(
15 Nov 06
dave
Dave,
Please pay attention. The BSD license is less restrictive, and thus more “free”, than the GPL.
15 Nov 06
Alex
Alex, the restrictions in the GPL mean that GPL software remains free, and encourages related software to become free too. The revised BSD license is less “free,” because it means non-free versions can be made by anti-social programmers who want to restrict everyone else’s freedom to share and change, and does nothing to discourage related non-free software.
18 May 07
dave
Will it fix this or is a fatcow platform issue:
http://www.textile.tmetonline.net/?s=article
vs: http://www.textile.tmetonline.net/index.php?s=article
basically any of this /
causes a 404 or other issues.
requiring /index.php
The browse and search use /
I even tried a base href and nothing.
21 May 07
Gölök ZLF Buday
Alex et al,
4.1 looks very promising. I’m following the checkins weekly and enjoy every sign of progress, be it nested sections, elements or performance tweaks. Thank you all.
04 Jun 07
Anton Andreasson
Very disappointed to see this change. The GPL, along with Textpattern’s published (and correct) opinion on plugin licensing, set this project apart (in a very good way) from virtually all other web site management systems. Others, with their “exceptions” or outright encouragement of “commercial” proprietary-licensed plugins, turns people away from those projects. It is against the spirit of the GPL to not enforce its licensing restrictions as copyright holder; and even worse to actually encourage such violations (and in some cases, guarantee a market for the commercial plugins, by keeping popular, sought-after features out of the “core” project)
Now, Textpattern goes BSD. It is a simpler, less restrictive license, but less restrictions comes with NO guarantees… no guarantees that derivative works or plugins will also be FREE. That was the POINT of the GPL’s restrictions on plugin licensing.
There WILL be a huge flood of “4.1.x or greater” proprietary, commercial plugins. There WILL be a sharp DECLINE in GPL licensed works. There WILL be a substantial decrease in 4.0.x third-party development. You WILL find people charging money for code hacks and snippets and distributing those under non free licenses. You WILL find people passing off Textpattern as their own (easier to “sell” a BSD product than a GPL one).
The license change appears to have been a concession made by the project for a FEW developers who are crying over money. I can name one, and I’m that anyone familiar with the project knows who that is and more. It was their CHOICE to get involved with a GPL licensed product; it was their choice to continue with said involvement. The license existed LONG BEFORE Textpattern, its restrictions well-known, and well-liked by (most) users. If you couldn’t make money with Textpattern while it was GPL licensed, then perhaps YOU have the wrong business model, not the wrong license.
ONLY DEVELOPERS benefit from this change; the END USERS lose, big time.
MANY END USERS will REFUSE to upgrade to the 4.1.x codebase and the “new” license. End users vote with their feet; and once they realize the significance of this change, and how it adversely affects them; they will move on to something else or will absolutely refuse to “upgrade”. In fact, I would not be surprised in the least if a campaign to BOYCOTT any non-GPL licensed version came to be.
The “commercial” developers drooling over huge sums of money will find that the market they are selling to is substantially smaller than they were expecting. Makes the whole license change pointless, doesn’t it? Why have the ability to sell proprietary licensed plugins if there will be virtually no market for it.
Inside of a year or two, it is entirely possible that the majority of Textpattern users will either be running the latest GPL version; or be a subscriber to TextDrive (or similar) managed Textpattern installation and hosting rolled into one (where they are not given a choice of version or license). The days of the “regular Joe” contributing to the popularity (or what will remain of it) of Textpattern are numbered.
There may even be a GPL fork of the project upon license change, which would be devastating to the original project. I know that when XFree86 changed licenses it was in the “other direction”, but the end-result for Textpattern may very well be the same.
It is somewhat ironic, that while Textpattern was advocating adherence to the GPL license for plugins; one project in particular, Joomla, was encouraging the “commercial” market (they even had commercial developers directly influencing core the feature set for their own benefit) —- and now that Textpattern is doing the same, by its switch in licensing; they have now taken Textpattern’s original position.
again, ONLY DEVELOPERS benefit from this change; the END USERS lose, big time.
08 Jul 07
jon
I must say that i agree completely wit jon.
It is a true shame.
Later
06 Oct 08
Luis Guzman