<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Frederik,<br>
<br>
All Mollom module code is under the GPL, and is available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.drupal.org/project/mollom">http://www.drupal.org/project/mollom</a>. This module is used, regardless
of what level of the external service is purchased.<br>
<br>
This is vastly different from providing a Drupal module under a non-GPL
license.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
Frederik Grunta wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:401b53480911190924v15b79718yeaabf2bd88c3f8f2@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I'm not sure if its relevant to point out that Dries
Buytaert's own module, Mollom, costs money for the full functionality.<br>
<br>
- Frederik<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2009/11/19 Brian Vuyk <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:brian@brianvuyk.com">brian@brianvuyk.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Larry,<br>
<br>
I don't believe that discussion of the GPL2, it's application, and
related subjects are off-topic for the development list. After all,
it's the license we are *all* releasing code under, and it is critical
that it is properly understood by the Drupal development community.
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com"
target="_blank">larry@garfieldtech.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Please follow up in the mentioned thread then, not here.<br>
<br>
--Larry Garfield<br>
<br>
Brian Vuyk wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Nowhere did I claim selling a module was wrong. Of course they can sell
a GPL module.<br>
<br>
The problem here is the code is not being released under the GPL.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com"
target="_blank">larry@garfieldtech.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
*sigh*<br>
<br>
There is nothing in the GPL that says you cannot sell a module. The
module author is free to charge $1 million dollars a copy if he wants
to... provided that the code is then licensed to buyers under the GPL,
which means the buyer could redistribute it for free if they felt like
it. So just charging for a module does not constitute a GPL violation.
We've been over this, and the dev list is not the place to be
rehashing it.<br>
<br>
I've already replied to that effect to the mentioned thread.<br>
<br>
--Larry Garfield<br>
Director of Legal Affairs<br>
Drupal Association<br>
<br>
Brian Vuyk wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
There are several long-running discussions on g.d.o over whether or not
a module constitutes a derivative of Drupal. Unfortunately, there isn't
much in the way of legal precedent to give definition to the term
'derivative' in the context of the GPL.<br>
<br>
While it is the Drupal Association's interpretation that a module *is*
derivative code, this is a somewhat legal grey area.<br>
<br>
If a module is considered to not be a derivative, then it doesn't
automatically gain the GPL, and there is nothing wrong with selling it,
and prosecuting anyone who redistributes it.<br>
<br>
If it is indeed a derivative (the stance I take), then modules
automatically assume the full protection / freedom of the GPL. In which
case this developer is violating the GPL.<br>
<br>
In short, someone should purchase the module, and exercise their GPL
freedom to post it to D.org, or take over maintainership of the module.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
Naheem Zaffar wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alex@developmentseed.org" target="_blank">alex@developmentseed.org</a>
<mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alex@developmentseed.org" target="_blank">alex@developmentseed.org</a>>><br>
<br>
<br>
This may have come up before, but<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php" target="_blank">http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php</a>
launched on Nov 12 and<br>
appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a<br>
module download.<br>
<br>
<br>
The GPL does not say that the module has to be for free. However once
the module has been "distributed" to other individuals, no additional
restrictions above the GPL can be added, so if the person has clause
that the purchasers cannot sell/pass the module onto others, that would
be a problem, otherwise, no it wouldn't.<br>
<br>
IANAL, but that is my understanding.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>