GPL 2 violation by integrationservic.es
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/ drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download: http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628 http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582 Is this a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published? Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
Hi Alex, I didn't think that being GPL licensed implies being free (as in beer). You may still charge to distribute the GPL'd code. I'm not a lawyer though. Regards Steven Jones ComputerMinds ltd - Perfect Drupal Websites Phone : 024 7666 7277 Mobile : 07702 131 576 Twitter : darthsteven http://www.computerminds.co.uk 2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org>:
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
On 19 Nov 2009 16h11 WET, alex@developmentseed.org wrote: Hello Alex, I suggest starting here: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
--- appa
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org>
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download.
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. IANAL, but that is my understanding.
*sigh* 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. I've already replied to that effect to the mentioned thread. --Larry Garfield Director of Legal Affairs Drupal Association Brian Vuyk wrote:
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.
While it is the Drupal Association's interpretation that a module *is* derivative code, this is a somewhat legal grey area.
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.
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.
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.
Brian
Naheem Zaffar wrote:
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org <mailto:alex@developmentseed.org>>
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download.
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.
IANAL, but that is my understanding.
Nowhere did I claim selling a module was wrong. Of course they can sell a GPL module. The problem here is the code is not being released under the GPL. Brian larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
*sigh*
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.
I've already replied to that effect to the mentioned thread.
--Larry Garfield Director of Legal Affairs Drupal Association
Brian Vuyk wrote:
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.
While it is the Drupal Association's interpretation that a module *is* derivative code, this is a somewhat legal grey area.
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.
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.
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.
Brian
Naheem Zaffar wrote:
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org <mailto:alex@developmentseed.org>>
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download.
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.
IANAL, but that is my understanding.
Please follow up in the mentioned thread then, not here. --Larry Garfield Brian Vuyk wrote:
Nowhere did I claim selling a module was wrong. Of course they can sell a GPL module.
The problem here is the code is not being released under the GPL.
Brian
larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
*sigh*
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.
I've already replied to that effect to the mentioned thread.
--Larry Garfield Director of Legal Affairs Drupal Association
Brian Vuyk wrote:
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.
While it is the Drupal Association's interpretation that a module *is* derivative code, this is a somewhat legal grey area.
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.
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.
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.
Brian
Naheem Zaffar wrote:
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org <mailto:alex@developmentseed.org>>
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download.
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.
IANAL, but that is my understanding.
Larry, 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. Brian larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
Please follow up in the mentioned thread then, not here.
--Larry Garfield
Brian Vuyk wrote:
Nowhere did I claim selling a module was wrong. Of course they can sell a GPL module.
The problem here is the code is not being released under the GPL.
Brian
larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
*sigh*
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.
I've already replied to that effect to the mentioned thread.
--Larry Garfield Director of Legal Affairs Drupal Association
Brian Vuyk wrote:
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.
While it is the Drupal Association's interpretation that a module *is* derivative code, this is a somewhat legal grey area.
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.
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.
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.
Brian
Naheem Zaffar wrote:
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org <mailto:alex@developmentseed.org>>
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download.
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.
IANAL, but that is my understanding.
I'm not sure if its relevant to point out that Dries Buytaert's own module, Mollom, costs money for the full functionality. - Frederik 2009/11/19 Brian Vuyk <brian@brianvuyk.com>
Larry,
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.
Brian
larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
Please follow up in the mentioned thread then, not here.
--Larry Garfield
Brian Vuyk wrote:
Nowhere did I claim selling a module was wrong. Of course they can sell a GPL module.
The problem here is the code is not being released under the GPL.
Brian
larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
*sigh*
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.
I've already replied to that effect to the mentioned thread.
--Larry Garfield Director of Legal Affairs Drupal Association
Brian Vuyk wrote:
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.
While it is the Drupal Association's interpretation that a module *is* derivative code, this is a somewhat legal grey area.
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.
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.
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.
Brian
Naheem Zaffar wrote:
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org <mailto: alex@developmentseed.org>>
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download.
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.
IANAL, but that is my understanding.
On 11/19/2009 11:32 AM, Brian Vuyk wrote:
All Mollom module code is under the GPL, and is available at http://www.drupal.org/project/mollom. This module is used, regardless of what level of the external service is purchased.
This is vastly different from providing a Drupal module under a non-GPL license. What we are really saying here is someone needs to tell this dude to wise up and move the smarts of his module into the cloud. GPL the simple API module that calls his service and charge a fixed fee for lifetime service. Same effect, obeys license requirements and we all (FOSS) still lose as a result. :(. -mf
...snip...
What we are really saying here is someone needs to tell this dude to wise up and move the smarts of his module into the cloud. GPL the simple API module that calls his service and charge a fixed fee for lifetime service. Same effect, obeys license requirements and we all (FOSS) still lose as a result. :(. -mf Suggest AGPL then ;)
I'm not sure if its relevant to point out that Dries Buytaert's own module, Mollom, costs money for the full functionality. No, it's not really. The module is free, the (full) service is not.
Regards Steven Jones ComputerMinds ltd - Perfect Drupal Websites Phone : 024 7666 7277 Mobile : 07702 131 576 Twitter : darthsteven http://www.computerminds.co.uk 2009/11/19 Frederik Grunta <fgrunta@gmail.com>:
I'm not sure if its relevant to point out that Dries Buytaert's own module, Mollom, costs money for the full functionality.
- Frederik
2009/11/19 Brian Vuyk <brian@brianvuyk.com>
Larry,
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.
Brian
larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
Please follow up in the mentioned thread then, not here.
--Larry Garfield
Brian Vuyk wrote:
Nowhere did I claim selling a module was wrong. Of course they can sell a GPL module.
The problem here is the code is not being released under the GPL.
Brian
larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
*sigh*
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.
I've already replied to that effect to the mentioned thread.
--Larry Garfield Director of Legal Affairs Drupal Association
Brian Vuyk wrote:
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.
While it is the Drupal Association's interpretation that a module *is* derivative code, this is a somewhat legal grey area.
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.
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.
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.
Brian
Naheem Zaffar wrote: > > > 2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org > <mailto:alex@developmentseed.org>> > > > This may have come up before, but > http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and > appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a > module download. > > > 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. > > IANAL, but that is my understanding.
On 19 Nov 2009 16h47 WET, naheemzaffar@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/19 Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org>
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download.
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.
IANAL, but that is my understanding.
Yes it's true. It depends on the terms of the deal they are offering. IANAL also. --- appa
As important this may be, it doesn't really strike me as on-topic for a development list? I could be wrong. -- John Fiala www.jcfiala.net
On 19 Nov 2009 17h02 WET, jcfiala@gmail.com wrote:
As important this may be, it doesn't really strike me as on-topic for a development list? I could be wrong.
IMO, you are. Knowledge and defense of the GPL is paramount for any developer working on Drupal. --- appa
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org>wrote:
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
I believe they're only in violation if they don't offer their source code with a GPL license after you buy it. I don't think charging $33 for a download would be a violation. I can't see anything about the license terms on their site, but if they aren't distributing their module under the GPL, then in that case I think it would be a violation. - Scott
No promises, but you can charge whatever you want for a module. However, it's only a distribution fee (same as buying linux CDs) and the GPL then applies to the purchased software (they can then give it away for free if they want). There are also restrictions on the contents of the package (attribution, etc.). Also, Non-code assets like images are not inherently GPL by virtue of using Drupal, which is why themes frequently have a fee associated with them. As for action... it only matters if they are actually violating the license terms. Someone would have to download it to find out for sure. - Ken Winters On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
Hi Alex, try http://groups.drupal.org/legal I am not a lawyer. This is my limited personal understanding. But I believe you can charge what ever you want for a module. The GPL 2 requires that you distributed the source and GPL 2 or greater license with it. So unless they are refusing to include the GPL license with it and the source code this shouldn't be a problem. They are also offering 1 month of support with a single domain usage, and 1 year of updates and 1 month of support for the multi-domain usage. Again, as long as their "license" doesn't conflict with the GPL 2 or greater license I don't see a direct violation. GPL 2 doesn't demand future releases of software. Kieran On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org> wrote:
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
On 19 Nov 2009 16h11 WET, alex@developmentseed.org wrote: Also check the FSF GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
--- appa
I just wrote the company, who informed me that the module is licensed under the GPL. No violation here. -Matt On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org>wrote:
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
Larry, Matt: Thanks for the clarifications. Selling modules under GPL is fine, module is GPLed licensed. All good. I went back to Google and searched for 'Drupal licensing' instead of 'Drupal license' and found these useful resources (posted by Larry, not surprisingly): http://drupal.org/licensing/faq (see 6, 7, 8, 9) http://drupal.org/node/272652 I learned something today. Alex On Nov 19, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Matt Chapman wrote:
I just wrote the company, who informed me that the module is licensed under the GPL. No violation here.
-Matt
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Alex Barth <alex@developmentseed.org> wrote:
This may have come up before, but http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php launched on Nov 12 and appears to be violating drupal's GPL2 by charging 33 $ for a module download:
http://drupal.org/node/229996#comment-2210628
http://integrationservic.es/drupal.php
http://twitter.com/cc_php/status/5654452582
Is this
a) A violation of of drupal's GPL 2? (In my understanding very clearly so) b) What are the proper steps to be taken to get this code taken down or published?
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
Alex Barth http://www.developmentseed.org/blog tel (202) 250-3633
participants (14)
-
Alex Barth -
Antonio P. P. Almeida -
Brian Vuyk -
Frederik Grunta -
John Fiala -
Ken Winters -
Kieran Lal -
larry＠garfieldtech.com -
Matt Chapman -
Michael Favia -
Naheem Zaffar -
Scott Hadfield -
Steven Jones -
Vladimir Zlatanov