from point 7:
However, when distributing your own Drupal-based work, it is important to keep in mind what the GPL applies to. The GPL on code applies to code that interacts with that code, but not to data. That is, Drupal's PHP code is under the GPL, and so all PHP code that interacts with it must also be under the GPL or GPL compatible. Images, JavaScript, and Flash files that PHP sends to the browser are not affected by the GPL because they are data.
above is NOT TRUE.
Even if data not interact with program, in this case theme, but is distributed with and inside theme, as a section which is distributed with GPL - BECOMES GPL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
:
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.
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
when you distribute
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
THEME is WHOLE WORK.
SO its obvious that:
distribution does affect how somebody can license their work.
CSS and IMAGES and js are part of THEME = WORK which is GPL.
Distributed with theme BECOMES GPL even if previously someone said that are not.
Comments
Both statements are correct,
Both statements are correct, nor do they conflict.
The themes that ship with Drupal are GPL, simply because that's how they're licensed. The FAQ is incorrect to the extent it says the CSS, Javascript, and image resources are data, because they're actually considered media: data is not copyrightable.
The GPL dictates the terms under which GPL-licensed works may be distributed. If you modify a work and distribute it, you must also license the modification under the GPL. Licensing the derived work under the GPL is done by the author making the modification -- the law does not licence works by virtue of their existence, distributing a copyrighted work always requires the copyright owner's permission (which is what the GPL grants). This licence is usually implicitly assumed for derived works because there is no other legal way to distribute modifications to a GPL work.
Third-party media resources are independently distributed, and they are not derived from Drupal code. Often they are never even read by Drupal, or when they are, it is to produce compressed output, which is not copyrightable. They can be freely adapted or interchanged, and they form works on their own. They are no legally different than the database content Drupal serves in addition to the template, and so form separate works, and can be licensed in whatever manner the author wishes.
-----------------------------
----------------------------------PART 1-----------------------------------------------------------------
what is for you 'Third-party media resources' ?
CSS and images and JS are distributed with php code.
They are distributed as template zip (most often) which is later installed by drupal.
CSS images and JS are inside distributed zip. this distribution file (often zip) contains inside:
1.PHP code - GPL
2.css, images, js which even if are not gpl becomes gpl because are NOT DISTRIBUTED SEPARATELY.
http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html
(WARNING - LONG READ)
one example:
The GPL itself admits to the possibility that certain kinds of works, independently distributed, may not be subject to the terms of the GPL. Section 2 of the GPL states: "[The requirement that the modified work be licensed under the GPL] 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." In our scenario, then, if S can be considered an independent work of G' and if S is distributed separately from G', then S need not be licensed under the terms of the GPL. Given that it is being independently distributed, the answer then depends on whether S can be considered an independent work of G'. Independence is nowhere defined in the GPL, but it seems reasonable to assume that the drafters meant the term to encompass the set of works that are not derivative of the original work.
Independently are often distributed PSD files - and yes, they are not read buy drupal, so PSD files can be copyrighted - and only this is true.
Sorry but i dont understand this part from 'third party.....' in your post. are you talking about compressed output as of css and images or not ?
css and images are on server and while parsing php files drupal generates output - this output is html and this html is styled and modified by scripts and images.And even if drupal code by itself does not TOUCH this files and only generates HTML which touch them, DISTRIBUTION of FILES inside TEMPLATES still is NOT independently distributed.
IT is distributed inside ONE FILE - ONE WORK - ONE TEMPLATE.
----------------------------------PART 2-----------------------------------------------------------------
JQUERY is often distributed together with template if template is based on jquery.
Jquery is GPL compatible.
HTML uses jquery if above condition (template based on jquery) is true.
CSS are often required to place elements used by jquery. Most scripts like nivo slider and as jquery became super popular in this times requires jquery.
Deleting jquery often mess up whole template.
So template work is based on jquery. Images have certain width and height and jquery requires width and height to position or move some elements on site.
CONCLUSION:
If someone want to have css images and js copyrighted he have to:
1.distribute not in template file but completely separately.
2.not be based on any gpl template so far, even can not have work based on first ever drupal template.
3, can not use any jquery or any other gpl compatible scripts.
Any other existing so far template, if inside mainly installable file for drupal wordpress or joomla is css or images or js - gpl from php code which also is inside, extends to all files inside, including css images and js.
So far i did not happen to see images css and js distributed SEPARATELY from php code, nor for drupal nor for joomla and nor for wordpress.
this means that any existing so far template for above products is GPL including ALL.
And even more - creators of templates can have NO IDEA about GPL. They seems to only copy text from one page to another. proof ?
http://rookery9.aviary.com.s3.amazonaws.com/13578500/13578684_5c6c_625x6...
http://twitter.com/#!/templatic/status/190504269240205312
Perhaps you're
Perhaps you're misunderstanding some part of the text or a word? The quote you just cited from http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html made the case that theme resources, including templates, CSS, and images, are separate and independent, and are separately licensed.
Third-party means works which are made by some independent author/artist, and not shipped as a part of Drupal. Additionally, themes are not derivative works of Drupal. They are not made or written using Drupal's GPL licensed code. Therefore, third-party works may be licensed however they want by their authors. It is not enough to be "distributed with" or "written for" a particular use. (The GPL can and does insist, however, the conditions in which you may legally redistribute GPL programs mixed with non-GPL works, particularly statically linked non-free software. The GPL doesn't try to--nor could it legally--extend this restriction to tarballs in general or all software at large, otherwise there'd be no way to legally distribute a Linux distribution or the bulk of web servers out there.) The GPL can only apply itself at the time of redistribution to derivative works, which is legally defined so as not to apply to images, templates, and other theme resources.
Note that while you may chose any license you wish, Drupal.org will only host your theme if it is GPLv2 or GPLv3 licensed.
Still no: you said
Still no:
you said that:
but gpl says
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.
Can you prove that your statement is true ?
Who exactly says that IT IS NOT ENOUGH ?
GPL says THAT IT IS.
GPL says that this 'copyrighted' sections distributed 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.
Whole work is theme.
Theme is using PHP which is GPL:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
The companies which sell themes sells them inside one zip file. inside is js css php and images. all sections are sold as one file.
...what about second part - jquery ?
and what about all css files using gpl compatible already written css files like boilerplate and modernizr and many more ? what about all scripts using jquery ? all they derive work from jquery.
Are there any other
Are there any other organizations you can point to that have taken the stance you propose? I'm not aware of any.
Until there is a body of case law that interprets the GPL we are all kind of guessing at what it means, but I believe that the Drupal licensing FAQ is pretty accurate on this point. I base that statement on the fact that many other organizations who have consulted with lawyers specializing in this field have come to similar conclusions.
certifiedtorock.com/u/36762/ | Druplicon debit card
OK. I am not against DRUPAL.
OK. I am not against DRUPAL. NOR against GPL. I am pro and for gpl, even more i would like to see that everything in the world, is on WTFPL model. or any other type ZERO.
And you are right, i can point you only to direct GPL license.
And as well as many organizations came to such conclusion, nobody said that this is direct and only one TRUE conclusion.
Only one true conclusion would be the one which is inside terms of GPL.
And only ONE conclusion which would never state against any part of GPL would be some similar to this, chosen by for example :
http://www.woothemes.com/terms-conditions/
NOBODY on the world can tell them that they are violating GPL.
Yes, but you know, this decision is not based on strict GPL text. It is based on others people toughts.
And as you wrote - until court case - this thoughts can be as true as false....
...and now it seems like you admit (no offense) that DRUPAL faq just 'repeat what others said'...
...and drupal is very popular. and very precious thing...even wordpress on this page :
http://wordpress.org/about/license/
recommends reading this faq.
And most people do.... and they take it as true...and they later are writing they own license terms which is just like written in FAQ.
Why ?
Because when some authority in this fields, like drupal or wordpress tell them that they can - they think that this is only one and only correct true....even not thinkin about it....
They can just think 'why we should do something else or why we should think if this is really correct with GPL, we will just read faq on drupal and we will do as they say'....
and this are results:
![]()
http://rookery9.aviary.com.s3.amazonaws.com/13578500/13578684_5c6c_625x625.jpg
they dont care about it....
like yootheme:
Thanks for your email! In fact the GPL is quite ok with a split license. CSS, JavaScript and images are not affected by the GPL. If you want to learn more about it you can simple google it.
Best regards
Sascha
Your YOOtheme Team
They are just following something good. without checking....
and without knowing that this can be wrong:
Until there is a body of case law that interprets the GPL we are all kind of guessing at what it means, but I believe that the Drupal licensing FAQ is pretty accurate on this point....
So who says that "it is not
So who says that "it is not enough?" Copyright law. There's plenty of actual legal cases applying what copyright licenses are allowed to cover, and what they don't. And a copyright license, including the GPL, can only apply to derivative works. The GPL doesn't claim to cover works which are not derivative works, including separable, independently produced works, for instance, I can use CSS separately from a PHP file, and I can use a Drupal installation separately from a PHP engine distributed together on the same Linux distribution. What the GPL can and does cover are statically linked binaries that mix GPL and non-free code -- it prohibits redistribution of them (the LGPL, by contrast, does not).
Ipstenu is talking about the idea, held by Wordpress and even in the Drupal FAQ, that all Wordpress themes are necessarily GPL licensed, no matter what the theme author actually decides. He is wrong, because Wordpress themes are not a derivative work of any GPL-licensed work. Not only that, but it would be a dangerous idea, allowing any company to impose any license terms on modders or hackers merely because their work is produced for that company's product, despite containing none of their copyrighted work. This is what Sony similarly claims in their cases against modders. They too, are wrong.