Related question -
Clearly, copying a module (or even significant code snippets) and modifying existing files carries over the
GPL [134] to the modified code...what about this scenario?
Example module is viewed and practiced with. Seperate code (or even just a simple spreadsheet that generates some of the code snippets) is written that implements techniques of the example module - ie, by inputting field names for a new module, and outputting basic code - pntables generation, simple list functions, pnRender snippets of the fields in "postnuke usable form", etc.
The Example module code was not modified, yet what was learned from it (ie, the postnuke coding techniques) was implemented into creating a new module.
I guess the idea of creating a module from "scratch" allowing it to be used with a non-GPL license is a fuzzy line. Do the files all have to be written OUTSIDE, with no similarity of even the techniques used in other modules -ie, not CUT and PASTE, but READ and LEARN and DO in your own but similar form?
I have custom modules that I've created that are clearly
GPL [135] when I release them...but upcoming projects that are commercial in nature and outside the scope of the general
PN community. I'd like to keep it open source, yet offer a different license than the
GPL [136](ie, use and modify all you want, need permission to redistribute to
3rd parties or used commercially).
My coding techniques for postnuke are heavily flavored by learning from others modules, and I would never cut and paste code if doing anything but
GPL [137], but some similarities are sure to be found.
So, is coding "the postnuke way" enough to require the
GPL [138], or is "from scratch" mainly referring to the code logic (rather than merely
PHP techniques that are postnuke oriented)?
Any thoughts?
UHEweb