Development of the SMFforum Integration module for Drupal is no longer.  Amy Stephen over at OpenSourceCommunity.org pointed out on her blog that the module's project  leader, "vb", pulled the module due to licensing disagreements with SMF LLC.  Amy references vb's original post at the Drupal forum, but she has a lot more to say.  Amy's an active participant in the Joomla! community, a community which had their own issues with a bridge between Joomla! and SMF.

According to vb's post, an email sent by Michael "Oldiesmann" Eshom, Project Manager, Simple Machines LLC stated that:

The problem isn't with the smfforum.module file or the packages distributed on drupal.org. The problem is with the "smf_api_subs.php" file that you're distributing as part of the smf api package - it contains modified versions of several SMF functions, and you did not ask for permission to use this code or distribute it.

It appears that Simple Machines LLC doesn't have so much of a problem with bridging SMF and Drupal as much as they have issues with their own code being used without proper permission.  The Simple Machines License clearly states that "Any Distribution of a Modified Package or derivative requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC."  No word on whether Simple Machines LLC would endorse the use of their code if permission is asked.

IBM developerWorks: One of the most dramatic changes in software development practice over the past ten years is the building of "composite" software systems -- a combination of homegrown, open source, and third-party components, which allows teams to rapidly deliver advanced, comprehensive solutions. However, the unmanaged use of open source and third-party components adds risk. It can violate intellectual property rights, create unknown royalty obligations, increase maintenance costs, and introduce unidentified security vulnerabilities.

Complete Story

"Six Apart has recently decided that the best way to win back
customers fleeing their platforms is to target WordPress, which is a
new strategy they call competing.
(What have they been doing the past 7 years?) A good example is this
exchange between a commenter on Valleywag and Byrne Reese, the lead
developer of Movable Type:

Sundown: “@anildash: what part of Wordpress is not open source?”

byrnereese: “@Sunnduwn - I think that is a question better asked of
Automattic. Anil, and certainly not Six Apart, has never been briefed,
nor has anyone for that matter been presented with an accounting of
what is open and closed source at Automattic.”

Okay, here’s some accounting:

WordPress is 100% open source, GPL..."

Complete Story

The Joomla! community just completed migrating their forum from SMF over to phpBB3. Brad Baker posted some of the details on Joomla.org's use of phpBB3 for their forum. In part, some of the move to phpBB stemmed from Joomla.org's discomfort from bridging GPL applications with non-GPL applications. Baker answers the question in his own way.

Why did we move to phpBB3?
Good question, and there is a simple answer. Whilst SMF was great for us, it is not licensed under GPL, and as a result many of our users who like to follow the choices we make were going to run in to integration issues in the future. As well as that, the team at phpBB have been great, with many of them offering to help, especially with the conversion.
In any case, we’re not going back, and the future is phpBB3!

Beyond a few minor tweaks, it looks as if Joomla.org was able to convert SMF over to phpBB with very few issues. Considering the Joomla community forum usually has hundreds of users on line at the same time, this is no small move for a forum to make the switch to new software. Congratulations to Joomla!

"Receiving emails such as this one highlights the most compelling reason why Open Source is so powerful. It is also more than enough reason to reflect on the protection the GPL provides to projects such as Joomla! For without the funadamental framework of copyleft where would we be?"

Complete Story

"Are you a crafter of icons, sounds, backgrounds and splash screens, or even window manager themes? Selecting the right license for your artwork to coexist with free software is no trivial task. Creative Commons (CC) and Free Software Foundation (FSF) licenses each have their advantages, but they are mutually incompatible. The two groups are beginning to move toward simplifying the situation, but in the meantime there are several things you can do to make license compatibility easier.

The crux of the problem is that non-software artwork like the examples above occupies a strange niche inside free software applications and operating systems. They are not code, but they are tightly integrated into the system. Artists frequently create them as standalone works, but they are also -- by necessity -- bundled into software packages and distributions, many of which are under the FSF's General Public License (GPL)."

Complete Story

"It is fair to say the GPL does not intend to make it easy for proprietary software.The intention is to liberate code and ensure continual downstream benefits to users. So, yes, it's going to be easier to integrate open source code into a GPL'ed environment. And, as it should be!

It is important that community environments also ensure that open source developers benefit more than proprietary developers. It hasn't been that way in J! [Joomla!] or in Mambo."

 --Amy Stephen, OpenSourceCommunity.org, Comment to CMS Report's Is bridging a GPL application with a non-GPL application legal?

Amy Stephen over at Open Source Community has put together a good summary for how differing open source CMS projects have interpreted the impact the GPL has on third-party extensions/modules/plugins/add-ons.  Movement in the Joomla community ensuring GPL compliance for extensions is what prompted her comparisons of license interpretation between Drupal, Joomla, Plone, Typo3, Wordpress, and XOOPS.

Joomla!'s announcement from June 15, 2007 that began Joomla! is moving to ensure the future of the project by committing to compliance with the GNU/GPL license was a bit shocking to many accustomed to the Mambo proprietary extension licensing exception.

Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer because it really is difficult to know who is right and who is wrong in their interpretation of the GPL.  Probably the most confusing interpretation is in the area of bridges where a third-party module is used to connect a GPL application with a non-GPL application.  The significant impact of a strict interpretation of the GPL license can be clearly seen though Simple Machine's announcement of a SMF Bridge for Joomla! being discontinued due to the license interpretation change.  If you read the correspondence between SMF's developers and the Freedom Software Foundation representatives you come to the conclusion that even though the bridge is GPL you could still have legal issues if both applications being bridged are not under the GPL.