[development] GPL 2 violation by integrationservic.es

[Steven Jones]

> 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 at 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 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>