[consulting] GPL v3, contributions and effect on community

[Greg Holsclaw]

But really no one can grab your GPL v3 code and place it behind a
firewall as you say (not legally). The component of the GPL that covers
such an exmaple is the 'all derivatives of this work must be distributed
according to GPL v3...' (I don't have the text exactly in front of me
right now) prevents them for rebranding/distributing for profit your
work as proprietary.

But if I labor in a closet making a new functionality for Drupal and I
incorporate it into an innovative website (or even partner with others)
that makes lots of money, I should not be required to reveal my code
solely because Drupal is open source, GPL. As long as I don't distribute
the code/nor try to sell my 'custom' Drupal creation (though I could see
the entire site) I am not affected by GPL.

Really, the time that you make is difficult or impossible for
creative/entrepreneurial folks to profit from their creative ideas, they
will move to an arena where they can.

-G


-----Original Message-----
From: consulting-bounces at drupal.org
[mailto:consulting-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of Dan Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:29 PM
To: A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting providers
Subject: [consulting] GPL v3, contributions and effect on community

Hi Folks,

I wanted to riff off a subtopic that came up in the "Is this list Dead"
thread.  The GPL 3 provisions to close the "web services loophole" can
be seen in two ways.  One way is from the perspective that allows people
to use the code as they will and to make $ and not have to give back as
long as they don't distribute the code.  This makes some sense to folks
because it allows one to create scarcity to create profit.  The argument
is that it is better for the Free software movement because it
encourages participation.  There is another important way to look at
this however.  If I contribute code to a project, and someone takes that
code and puts it behind a firewall and makes $ from it then I feel like
they are using my work to line their pockets without contributing back. 

So if you can make the argument that "we need to allow for this loophole
so that people will have a business incentive to work with the code" it
seems logical that you can make the opposite argument.  "No one will
want to contribute to the project because they can't protect against
people who would unfairly profit from their work".  I have another
problem with the "leave the loophole" argument - which is that why do we
need to create a way for people to make $ in this way?  We prohibit them
from doing it via license fees?  The line got drawn where it is because
it is a "loophole".

So to summarize.  I am not against people making money (in any way that
is legal), I'm just against people using my work to make money for
themselves - *and then not sharing their work back*.

Dan

- yup - this list is not dead yet :)
_______________________________________________
consulting mailing list
consulting at drupal.org
http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting