[development] GPL 2 violation by integrationservic.es

[Frederik Grunta]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at developmentseed.org <mailto:
>>>>>> alex at 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20091119/53f025bc/attachment.html