License of entirely new language packs

**Markku** · 2007-07-26, 10:35 AM

Hi,

I have a quick question regarding license of entirely new language pack, are they really considered as modifications or not? As you know, language packs do not modify source code.

Under SPL entirely new language pack and entirely new module are not considered derivative work. In other words, they are not modifications of existing code, thus can be published under any license. Now it seems that new language pack is considered as a modification while entirely new module is not. On SPL faq page http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/public-license-faq.html it reads:

6) What is a derived work?

* a. Examples of a derived work. These all apply to source code initially made available under the SPL.
o i. Any code modifications other than changes in a configuration file.
...
* b. Examples of code that wouldn�t be considered a derived work.
o i. An entirely new language pack.
iii. An entirely new module that may use existing API�s.

Now on http://www.sugarforge.org/content/faq/gplv3.php it says:

Examples of a modification - which originated from Sugar Community Edition:
* Any code modifications other than changes in a configuration file.
* An entirely new language pack.

Examples of code that wouldn't be considered a modification.
* An entirely new module that uses existing API's

The way I see it is that SugarCRM is providing the list of 'Keys' (the left column in the language files). This can be considered an API to the SugarCRM localisation system. The 'Values' in the translations (the right column of translated strings) is the original work of the authors.

On SugarCRM GPL v3 FAQ it also reads that:

Are themes and language packs considered larger works?
A: Extensions implemented via the Module Loader form a larger work according to the GPL v3

However language packs do not need to be implemented via Module Loader. You can install and use language pack without Module Loader.

This is not a big deal, however it would be good to have clarification on this matter.

Best,

- Markku

**andydreisch** · 2007-07-26, 11:53 PM

Hi Markku, let me check with the Developers to make sure we can provide the best guidance. I'm glad you raised this point; we had discussed this is some detail beforehand. At the time we collected the FAQs we leaned towards the notion that a language pack is a "larger work"; that only web service (SOAP API) integration is not a "larger work" in the Sugar context via-a-vis GPLv3.

Whether the lang pack is integrated via the Module Loader or not we think is not material to this point.

As always, please consider this guidance and not legal advice.

Andy

**ruchida** · 2007-07-27, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by andydreisch

Hi Markku, let me check with the Developers to make sure we can provide the best guidance. I'm glad you raised this point; we had discussed this is some detail beforehand. At the time we collected the FAQs we leaned towards the notion that a language pack is a "larger work"; that only web service (SOAP API) integration is not a "larger work" in the Sugar context via-a-vis GPLv3.

Whether the lang pack is integrated via the Module Loader or not we think is not material to this point.

As always, please consider this guidance and not legal advice.

Andy

I agree with Andy. From a technical point of view, the reality is that we can not create an entirely new language pack without referring to arrays and keys in an English (master) language pack, which is GPL'ed. It means any language pack that works with Sugar Community Edition is modification to a master language pack. Language packs should be delivered under GPLv3 too.

**Markku** · 2007-07-27, 08:51 AM

Hi Andy and Ryuhei, thanks for your feedback, all clear now.

**andydreisch** · 2007-07-27, 03:40 PM

I just hope one day to be able to converse in Japanese as well as ruchida converses in English!!!

Andy

longreach · 2007-07-27, 07:49 PM

Seems that programs that link to SugarCRM CE via pipes, sockets, and CLI, in addition to SOAP, would also be sufficient to distinguish the programs as not being modifications.