Hi all,
I'm looking into Symfony right now, and this stopped my reading: " 8. License Licenses are important simply because they can have a significant impact on your applications. For example, an application developed using a GPL-licensed framework will necessarily be subject to GPL. On the other hand, this is not the case for an MIT-licensed framework. " http://symfony.com/ten-criteria
This seems untrue for several reasons, at best not worded very carefully. As I understand it, for example, using a GPL framework probably does not make your project "necessarily subject to" the GPL. Anyone more on this? Isn't that exactly what the GPL linking exception is for?
What do you people of the Free Software think? :)
Nico
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Nicolas JEAN jean@fsfeurope.org wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking into Symfony right now, and this stopped my reading: " 8. License Licenses are important simply because they can have a significant impact on your applications. For example, an application developed using a GPL-licensed framework will necessarily be subject to GPL. On the other hand, this is not the case for an MIT-licensed framework. " http://symfony.com/ten-criteria
This seems untrue for several reasons, at best not worded very carefully.
The careful wording is probably too complicated to the statements intended use/
As I understand it, for example, using a GPL framework probably does not make your project "necessarily subject to" the GPL. Anyone more on this? Isn't that exactly what the GPL linking exception is for?
This case would be of a of an application developed using a GPL-licensed framework with a GPL linking-exception, which is not the scenario described.
Of course the license also covers distribution of works, not development.
What do you people of the Free Software think? :)
I can imagine that any such exception for an application framework would have to be negotiated individually for each application project to have the exception. If it were a general exception it would be equivalent to a MIT license :-)
if your application is also GPL (and there are good reasons for making it GPL) then it would not be a problem.
MIT license addresses convenience more than liberty. Liberty must be carefully preserved.
Sam
Nicolas, to dive more into this issue of Linking, you may have a look at http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/44/74 and more specifically the PDF attached (can't remember the URL of this one).
However, as Sam noted, the Linking exception is not in the standard GPL, but an additional licensing clause added by the licensor. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception for a rough overview.
↪ 2015-09-23 Wed 17:11, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
Of course the license also covers distribution of works, not development.
Technically, the GPL covers all works “based on the [GPL] program” so it does cover developped works and not just the distribution of such works. Of course, the main obligations arise when you distribute such covered software which is why a lot of the focus is on distribution.
Best,
↪ 2015-09-23 Wed 17:54, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org:
Nicolas, to dive more into this issue of Linking, you may have a look at http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/44/74 and more specifically the PDF attached (can't remember the URL of this one).
Now attached;
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
↪ 2015-09-23 Wed 17:11, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
Of course the license also covers distribution of works, not development.
Technically, the GPL covers all works “based on the [GPL] program” so it does cover developped works and not just the distribution of such works. Of course, the main obligations arise when you distribute such covered software which is why a lot of the focus is on distribution.
To be clear, I was trying to state that it does not cover the ongoing development (verb) of such works.
To my understanding, works can be developed and also used privately by the developer in the case where the licensing combinations do not permit copying as coverd by copyright law.
Sam
Le 24 septembre 2015 11:25:11 GMT+02:00, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
↪ 2015-09-23 Wed 17:11, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
Of course the license also covers distribution of works, not
development.
Technically, the GPL covers all works “based on the [GPL] program” so it does cover developped works and not just the distribution of such works. Of course, the main obligations arise when you distribute such covered software which is why a lot of the focus is on distribution.
To be clear, I was trying to state that it does not cover the ongoing development (verb) of such works.
To my understanding, works can be developed and also used privately by the developer in the case where the licensing combinations do not permit copying as coverd by copyright law.
Sam _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
Le 24 septembre 2015 11:25:11 GMT+02:00, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com a écrit :
To my understanding, works can be developed and also used privately by the developer in the case where the licensing combinations do not permit copying as coverd by copyright law.
Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
The GPL license is a conditional permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden by copyright.
Copyright does not prohibit such development, so no new permission is required.
For the same reason I can buy books and build a castle out of them, or re-order the pages or write my own stories based on them even including large parts of the original book. But I may not distribute these works without permission from the rights holder.
Sam
↪ 2015-09-24 Thu 14:07, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
Le 24 septembre 2015 11:25:11 GMT+02:00, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com a écrit :
To my understanding, works can be developed and also used privately by the developer in the case where the licensing combinations do not permit copying as coverd by copyright law.
Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
The GPL license is a conditional permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden by copyright.
Copyright does not prohibit such development, so no new permission is required.
It depends. Copyright laws give a monopoly on certain activities related to a “work” (which can be e.g. a computer program or a novel).
More precisely for software, the rights to reproduce, to adapt as well as the right to distribute forms of the software are restricted activities (see EU directive 91/250, article 4).
So depending on what you're doing to develop new software, it is possible that you might be doing some reproduction or some adaptation of another original work; in such a scenario, the development is restricted by copyright laws without the need for distribution to happen.
This is why GPL actually gives your permission to reproduce, adapt from and distribute the software (this is actually more or less the title of the Terms and Conditions of GPLv2).
For the same reason I can buy books and build a castle out of them,
Building a castle out of books does not reproduce, adapt from or distribute the work. This is indeed not covered by copyright law. But construction laws may apply depending on how big your castle is ;-)
or re-order the pages or write my own stories based on them even including large parts of the original book. But I may not distribute these works without permission from the rights holder.
For non-software copyrighted works, you need to look at directive 2001/29. So that's off-topic for this list but if you're curious you can have a look. Not all analogies with literary works are good for thinking about software.
Best,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
↪ 2015-09-24 Thu 14:07, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
Le 24 septembre 2015 11:25:11 GMT+02:00, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com a écrit :
To my understanding, works can be developed and also used privately by the developer in the case where the licensing combinations do not permit copying as coverd by copyright law.
Why do you think that? Can you elaborate?
The GPL license is a conditional permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden by copyright.
Copyright does not prohibit such development, so no new permission is required.
It depends. Copyright laws give a monopoly on certain activities related to a “work” (which can be e.g. a computer program or a novel).
More precisely for software, the rights to reproduce, to adapt as well as the right to distribute forms of the software are restricted activities (see EU directive 91/250, article 4).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024
Interesting. I'm not personally subject to EU directives.
I'm now trying to find out if any members states have implemented it yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Programs_Directive http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3233/contents/made
So it seems unlikely to be prohibited yet; and in the instance under discussion I still think that it is not prohibited by the conflict of the two licences in question which grant freedom to use, placing restrictions on the distribution.
Sam
↪ 2015-09-25 Fri 15:55, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
More precisely for software, the rights to reproduce, to adapt as well as the right to distribute forms of the software are restricted activities (see EU directive 91/250, article 4).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024
Interesting. I'm not personally subject to EU directives.
This is more or less the same in almost all countries. I have given the EU directives examples because they are the most probably applicable to you in Europe.
I'm now trying to find out if any members states have implemented it yet.
This is European Union law since 1991. This has been implemented already for a long time. (The 2009 directive is just a re-codification, it does not change substantial legislation).
On 26 Sep 2015 11:20, "Hugo Roy" hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
↪ 2015-09-25 Fri 15:55, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
More precisely for software, the rights to reproduce, to adapt as well as the right to distribute forms of the software are restricted activities (see EU directive 91/250, article 4).
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024
Interesting. I'm not personally subject to EU directives.
This is more or less the same in almost all countries. I have given the EU directives examples because they are the most probably applicable to you in Europe.
I'm now trying to find out if any members states have implemented it
yet.
This is European Union law since 1991. This has been implemented already for a long time. (The 2009 directive is just a re-codification, it does not change substantial legislation).
Thanks for your research.
I think it does not constrain development of cross MIT/GPL projects, because the licences after liberal enough, except for distribution. do you agree?
Le 26 septembre 2015 21:34:03 GMT+02:00, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com a écrit :
Thanks for your research.
I think it does not constrain development of cross MIT/GPL projects, because the licences after liberal enough, except for distribution. do you agree?
Yes, all free software (or “open source”) licenses allow you to modify the program and make private developments adapting the program(s).
Hi Nico!
Good question. I see similar questions coming up quite frequently between me and my colleagues!
The "linking exception" you are referring to is probably one of the following: 1) The exception allowing works released under the GNU LGPL, the "Lesser General Public License" [1,2] to be linked with works under other licences. 2) The GCC Runtime Library Exception, which allows works compiled with the GNU C Compiler (GCC) to be released under a different license. [3]
I am not a lawyer, but...as far as I understand, this is rather irrelevant in this case:
A GPL-licensing of a web development framework has practically no legal impact on the freedom of choice of license of the developed web application, since the framework is not part of the "object code" of the developed web application, but rather a separable and independent "system library" in the terms of the GPL text.
Similarly I may (if I wanted) legally develop a proprietary software, written as a "bash" script, which makes use of "sed" and other GNU core utilities, which are all released under the GNU GPL. I may legally do that because they are not linked together and distributed as one "object code", they just make use of each other, but are clearly separable, both in source and in binary form (if any). In this sense the GNU core utilities are a "development framework" for bash scripts.
For PHP development frameworks, we see a similar situation: There are various PHP scripts, which together form the development framework. But each part and each PHP script of the development framework is a separate file. And the web application, which I write will be in other (separate) files again. Nothing will ever be linked together into any "object code" and if distributed together, it will be possible to separate the framework files from the application files. So the GPL will cover all changes (if any) made to the framework but it will not necessary affect any code licensing of the web application I wrote within other files.
GNU-people, lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong! ;)
Best, Jann
-- REFs: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_... [2] https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html
On 23/09/15 16:40, Nicolas JEAN wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking into Symfony right now, and this stopped my reading: " 8. License Licenses are important simply because they can have a significant impact on your applications. For example, an application developed using a GPL-licensed framework will necessarily be subject to GPL. On the other hand, this is not the case for an MIT-licensed framework. " http://symfony.com/ten-criteria
This seems untrue for several reasons, at best not worded very carefully. As I understand it, for example, using a GPL framework probably does not make your project "necessarily subject to" the GPL. Anyone more on this? Isn't that exactly what the GPL linking exception is for?
What do you people of the Free Software think? :)
Nico
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
Am 23.09.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Jann Eike Kruse:
I am not a lawyer, but...as far as I understand, this is rather irrelevant in this case:
A GPL-licensing of a web development framework has practically no legal impact on the freedom of choice of license of the developed web application, since the framework is not part of the "object code" of the developed web application, but rather a separable and independent "system library" in the terms of the GPL text.
I don't think so. Copyright does not know the concepts of "linking" or "object code" but only that of "derivative works".
IANAL2
Best regards Michael
Le 24 septembre 2015 10:53:48 GMT+02:00, Michael Kesper mkesper@schokokeks.org a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
Am 23.09.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Jann Eike Kruse:
I am not a lawyer, but...as far as I understand, this is rather irrelevant in this case:
A GPL-licensing of a web development framework has practically no legal impact on the freedom of choice of license of the developed web application, since the framework is not part of the "object code" of the developed web application, but rather a separable and independent "system library" in the terms of the GPL text.
I don't think so. Copyright does not know the concepts of "linking" or "object code" but only that of "derivative works".
IANAL2
Best regards Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJWA7oaAAoJEGDRRwTD4y6wgwcMAIkClP4BwHeI/M+O3sOHjIy/ YUgoBCdv61EzPR5SSk0a0GH6d2/9zj3E3XyaU7y55W505E8kF3ptjunF1n+MvAag MLURLX1dIiN+ZsuzVRjZ4F8t7Dd/70vn2aFZ0cZD5Tzuv60dXglZ78WTuTw8RWQj WXi6qG8zAzaHywmrtOLVTDNg1qow9iZiryIylYuDlLEc9OgG7HUl1iUO1iPWZ0Py jE8b4/ZUhwsYtKYdOh0y3+ceha0JkCmZu0n0o2dnlP6pcr8+a+3FXSmt3BGcNUOw icmEnRte2y7EySROsZDzCjAjbJWLxvZEvNOBdinwXUKpjSCz3XOaOWRzjTyWncph gK5f9xrRINyY8ZiDDRK5M4qE9yOweADalNqoBt7a015UVSFU/jDcXQKiaPCzx6bE GPKL2CfRochdhzqOa9BUlSpzDZtDIzeO/Gn6c7/uxkG6QYGvMWTeOWin+qgkk7Vr nCCC73tIkOJuJ8E6CO+A2IQlwm2/CmpMiy3CT8V+Ag== =3BUs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Actually copyright law in the EU on software applies to any "form of the work" and thus the Court of Justice has had the opportunity to clearly apply it to source and object code.
But it's true that --- to my knowledge, linking hasn't been decided upon yet.
On 24/09/15 11:53, Michael Kesper wrote:
Hi All,
Am 23.09.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Jann Eike Kruse:
I am not a lawyer, but...as far as I understand, this is rather irrelevant in this case:
A GPL-licensing of a web development framework has practically no legal impact on the freedom of choice of license of the developed web application, since the framework is not part of the "object code" of the developed web application, but rather a separable and independent "system library" in the terms of the GPL text.
I don't think so. Copyright does not know the concepts of "linking" or "object code" but only that of "derivative works".
You're right, let's talk about "derivative works". Let's consider the following simplified, but very common and typical scenario:
Say, I have programmed one PHP script (myApp.php), which calls another PHP script (gplSort.php) in order to sort some values in a database. I put myApp.php and my COPYING.txt and gplSort.php and the GPLv3.txt in a ZIP file and sell it on USB sticks as SuperMineTM.
Central questions: A) Is SuperMineTM a derivative work of gplSort.php? B) Is SuperMineTM a bundle of two software packages "myApp" and "gplSort"?
Case A: myApp.php would have to be (when released to the public) under the same (GPL) license as gplSort.php. Case B: If myApp.php is considered to be a work independent from gplSort.php - then the choice of licence is up to me.
I see that there are many people who are uncertain about such cases, and possibly there are many people with different opinions on what is the legal situation. Maybe it would be a nice idea, if we (FSF/E) would develop a case-by-case guide for software developers to help them with these things. Does something like that exist? Maybe in the FAQs? It would be a pity, if developers choose to not use (A/L)GPL, only out of confusion!
Cheers, Jann
-- PS: The above is a thought experiment to illustrate a common situation. Personally, I would solve that problem by releasing SuperMineTM (if it existed) under the GPL, of course! ;)
On Thursday 24. September 2015 14.58.20 Jann Eike Kruse wrote:
You're right, let's talk about "derivative works". Let's consider the following simplified, but very common and typical scenario:
Say, I have programmed one PHP script (myApp.php), which calls another PHP script (gplSort.php) in order to sort some values in a database. I put myApp.php and my COPYING.txt and gplSort.php and the GPLv3.txt in a ZIP file and sell it on USB sticks as SuperMineTM.
Central questions: A) Is SuperMineTM a derivative work of gplSort.php? B) Is SuperMineTM a bundle of two software packages "myApp" and "gplSort"?
There will be people on this list who are better qualified than I am to comment on this. However, it is always illustrative to consider the running program when trying to determine what is affected by which licence...
Case A: myApp.php would have to be (when released to the public) under the same (GPL) license as gplSort.php. Case B: If myApp.php is considered to be a work independent from gplSort.php - then the choice of licence is up to me.
So, when someone receives SuperMineTM and deploys it, the running program will be your code (myApp.php), the GPL-licensed code (gplSort.php) and some other stuff (like the PHP runtime and so on, which we can ignore here for various reasons). The issue now is under what terms the recipient can distribute this to others.
For example, can they use some kind of convert-to-binary tool on myApp.php, perhaps after changing the code, and distribute the result? If they do this, does the person receiving it from them have the right to ask for the sources for this binary?
The way to think about this is to consider the intention of the person who wrote the GPL-licensed code. By using the GPL, it is as if they wished to only ever have their code incorporated into programs for which the sources would always be available. Thus, by using that GPL-licensed code, you are agreeing that if your code and their code show up in the same running program, you will also share your sources with the person running that program, too. And the same applies for anyone receiving the program under those terms.
So, if someone now takes your code, modifies it, makes a binary from it, and then gives it to someone else, and if that code uses gplSort.php when run, the person running the result has the right to ask for the sources that can be transformed to produce that running program. If the person making the binary- only version does not provide the sources, then there is an argument that they violated the licence of gplSort.php because the complete source of the running program cannot be obtained by the recipient. In this case, gplSort.php may already be in source form, but there would be a binary blob corresponding to myApp.php that the recipient would not be able to properly understand.
This is where the "derivative works" aspect appears to enter the picture. Some might claim that myApp.php is not a derivative work of gplSort.php, but it is less about the status of that individual file and more about the status of the entire program. Some might also claim that myApp.php only uses gplSort.php but could use mitSort.php instead. Here, the GPL actually provides some flexibility: it merely requests that myApp.php be licensed under a GPL- compatible licence, not necessarily the GPL itself, if myApp.php is ever to be used with gplSort.php [1].
Some might also claim that the mere presence of gplSort.php in a program should not affect the obligations on the authors of other parts of that program, particularly if those authors actually intended their code to run in a program based on mitSort.php instead. Here, Sam's observations about people doing what they like with copyrighted works in private seems to apply. Should anyone combining such code with gplSort.php realistically expect to demand sources from the authors of that code [2]? What is perhaps less in dispute is that anyone distributing combinations of that code and gplSort.php would need to be in a position to provide the sources to recipients.
I see that there are many people who are uncertain about such cases, and possibly there are many people with different opinions on what is the legal situation. Maybe it would be a nice idea, if we (FSF/E) would develop a case-by-case guide for software developers to help them with these things. Does something like that exist? Maybe in the FAQs? It would be a pity, if developers choose to not use (A/L)GPL, only out of confusion!
The GPL FAQ does answer general questions, and specific questions should be answered by properly-qualified people. Nevertheless, there is an area of general understanding that doesn't seem to be very well documented.
[...]
PS: The above is a thought experiment to illustrate a common situation. Personally, I would solve that problem by releasing SuperMineTM (if it existed) under the GPL, of course! ;)
Of course! :-)
Paul
[1] This is needed because the GPL governs the distribution of gplSort.php and what happens when you ask for the sources of any program using it. If myApp.php were distributed under a GPL-incompatible licence, it might not be possible to satisfy that licence's conditions and the GPL at the same time. But there are plenty of Free Software licences that could be applied to myApp.php that would uphold the GPL-governed properties of the resulting program.
[2] This is possibly closest to the situation with non-free graphics drivers on Linux, where the claim is that these drivers use the same interface on different platforms, are thus not specifically intended to interact with GPL- licensed code, and that it isn't the vendor's fault that people use them on Linux. Personally, I think such arguments are rather weak: it is obvious that those vendors ship drivers to work on Linux and that they will be running as part of a Linux-based "program".
A few public links for those of you interested in going into these issues:
- SFLC's guide to GPL compliance https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to_GPL_Compliance_... - http://www.ifosslr.org/public/LinkingDocument.odt exploring different cases of linking and more articles on ifosslr.org in general are worth having a look for lawyers or people interested in legal stuff - Copyleft.guide
And, of course, it's always needed to have in mind the actual texts of the license, for instance https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt.
↪ 2015-09-24 Thu 17:36, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk:
This is where the "derivative works" aspect appears to enter the picture. Some
Also, it should be taken into account that derivative works is a concept in copyright law, not defined in the GPL. The GPL defines its own scope. In version 2, the scope is in section 0:
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.** [...]
and at the end of section 2:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, **mere aggregation** of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
There are, in my opinion, enough elements in the GPLv2 to show that the concept of the derivative work alone is not enough to fully understand the scope of the GPL and the obligations imposed depending on the context (distribution or not, etc). Other people disagree on this :)
might claim that myApp.php is not a derivative work of gplSort.php, but it is less about the status of that individual file and more about the status of the entire program. Some might also claim that myApp.php only uses gplSort.php but could use mitSort.php instead. Here, the GPL actually provides some flexibility: it merely requests that myApp.php be licensed under a GPL- compatible licence, not necessarily the GPL itself, if myApp.php is ever to be used with gplSort.php [1].
Actually the GPL itself applies, see GPLv2 section 2:
when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program [here: myApp.php if I understand your example correctly], 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.
This, in combination with section 6 of the GPLv2 (no “further restrictions”), is why there's so much concern on “GPL-compatibility”.
Some might also claim that the mere presence of gplSort.php in a program should not affect the obligations on the authors of other parts of that program, particularly if those authors actually intended their code to run in a program based on mitSort.php instead.
Indeed, see, again section 2:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
Here, Sam's observations about people doing what they like with copyrighted works in private seems to apply. Should anyone combining such code with gplSort.php realistically expect to demand sources from the authors of that code [2]?
Well, if you don't distribute any software to anyone else, you don't have any of the distribution obligations (GPLv2 section 3 and further) towards anyone under the GPL. So they would be no basis to ask you to provide sources.
Otherwise, your freedom to modify software as you see fit would be greatly encumbered.
What is perhaps less in dispute is that anyone distributing combinations of that code and gplSort.php would need to be in a position to provide the sources to recipients.
I see that there are many people who are uncertain about such cases, and possibly there are many people with different opinions on what is the legal situation. Maybe it would be a nice idea, if we (FSF/E) would develop a case-by-case guide for software developers to help them with these things. Does something like that exist? Maybe in the FAQs? It would be a pity, if developers choose to not use (A/L)GPL, only out of confusion!
The GPL FAQ does answer general questions, and specific questions should be answered by properly-qualified people. Nevertheless, there is an area of general understanding that doesn't seem to be very well documented.
Yes, and actually let me say that there's a legal team in FSFE who can help on exactly such requests for information, see https://fsfe.org/legal
Best,