Ask Slashdot: How Best To Deal With a GPLv2 License Infringement? 240
cultiv8 writes "I am a developer and released some code at one point under GPLv2. It's nothing huge — a small Drupal module that integrates a Drupal e-commerce system (i.e. Ubercart) with multiple Authorize.net accounts — but very useful for non-profits. Earlier today I discovered that a Drupal user was selling the module from their website for $49 and claiming it was their custom-made module. I'm no lawyer, but my perspective is this violates both the spirit and law of GPLv2, most specifically clause 2-b: 'You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.' Am I correct in my understanding of GPLv2? Do I have any recourse, and should I do anything about this? I don't care about money, I just don't want someone selling stuff that I released for free. How do most developers/organizations deal with licensing infringements of this type?"
Come over to gpl-violations.org for help! (Score:5, Informative)
Post your question on the gpl-violations mailing list and we'll try to help you work through the details of any (perceived) GPL violation.
Short answer: Selling GPLed software (even software you did not personally author) is okay. However, you must correctly attribute the copyrighted work re: the upstream author(s), and you must comply with the terms of the GPL license, including providing the complete source.
Not selling his module (Score:5, Informative)
They aren't actually selling his module.. it says:
We are providing complete support, configuration and installation for this module.
Not the same thing at all. Besides the FSF says selling GPL'd software is ok [gnu.org]
You would have a case if they were claiming it was their module.. but I wasn't able to find even that on their site.
Understand your choice of license... (Score:5, Informative)
This is probably a bit of hindsight advice, but try to understand the license you choose for your work before releasing under said license. Releasing code under GPLv2 w/o understanding how downstream "users" can legally use it doesn't help when you have to question the legality of someone charging money for the work. If they provide the source and attribution to your work, they're good to go.
If this wasn't the intended use, then consider a different license that more agrees with the ideals which the code was released under. Granted - if you reassign your code to AGPL or something of that sort, many people will either not comply or avoid the work entirely to avoid needing to disclose *their* surrounding source too.
Selling GPLv2 software is not an infringement (Score:5, Informative)
Earlier today I discovered that a Drupal user was selling the module from their website for $49 and claiming it was their custom-made module. I'm no lawyer, but my perspective is this violates both the spirit and law of GPLv2
It is perfectly fine to sell someone else's GPLv2 module for $49; the GPLv2 specifically allows you to sell software.
There's also no GPLv2 problem with the part about "We are providing complete support, configuration and installation for this module."; the GPL doesn't restrict what extra services can be bundled with software.
Now there would be a problem if they distribute the GPLv2 software, with your copyright notices remove, or attempt to redistribute under more restrictive terms than the GPLv2.
If what they are selling is USE of a GPLv2 module through their drupal hosting service, where the software is not actually ever distributed to the end user, then well, the GPLv2's redistribution requirement that redistributions be under the GPL doesn't come to bear until they actually distribute the code.
Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
Hi,
I need to run off in two shakes of a lamb's tail, but I took a quick look I don't see the GPLv2 (or any GPL license) mentioned anywhere in your code.
I suggest that you
1) Put a copy of the GPL (v2, v3, etc...) at the top level of your project. I usually make a file LICENSE.txt that explains that the project is using the GPL, and then put a copy of the GPL at the end of that file.
2) Put license headers on ALL of your files, so that even if they get separated there is no confusion about either the license or the author. They should look like this:
UC Authorizenet Multi
Copyright (C) 2011 Cultiv8 (put your real name here...duh!)
UC Authorizenet Multi is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
UC Authorizenet Multi is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License .
along with UC Authorizenet Multi. If not, see
Here's a quick link to more information: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html [gnu.org]
Re:Not selling his module (Score:5, Informative)
So yeah, sorry to break this to the author, but it looks like those guys aren't actually doing anything wrong.
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
Did the guy mention that he copyrighted his work? If he put it out there with nothing indicating that, there's an argument that he put it into the public domain....
On the contrary. The default proposition is that it IS copyrighted and that all rights are reserved. Under Common Law, anyway.
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus... It's amazing what crap a first poster can say. No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write
Ironic. Yes, of course you may.
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
All works are automatically copyrighted, notice or not. It is not a defense to claim you did not know. All works are copyrighted UNLESS placed into the public domain. That requires a disclaimer. The only argument might be that he didn't originally write, which is very iffy, and probably isn't going to fly in court.
In fact, if there are no notices, it is probably not GPL'd. Which is an interesting problem in itself...
"No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write, though you may charge a distribution fee, and you must provide a way to access the source code you're distributing."
False. The source must be distributed if it is changed. Otherwise, it is not your responsibility. He was right, you are not.
Anyway, this is a Drupal module for heaven's sake, AKA a PHP script. It is source. I'm wondering if you have any idea what you're talking about, or just felt like knee-jerking some.
"If some a-hole is charging $50-ish bucks for your software, take him down."
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
link [gnu.org]
Troll elsewhere.
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Person A releases GPL code
2. Person B takes it and does modifications. Puts it up on site to sell @ $50. The purchaser gets the program AND the source code (if they want the source code).
3. Person A is angry but has *no case*.
Person A only has a case IFF Person B sells the modifications without releasing the source code with the modified binary.
Person A cannot even demand the source code modifications from Person B unless they *legally* acquire the modified binary.
If you have issues with this, please read and re-read GPL license or alternatively use non-GPL license.
PS. I do not know the details of this case are. But GPL does not imply "freeware" of any kind. It only affirms that GPL freedoms are passed to the user of (modified) GPL software.
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
Your post is mostly correct, but I spotted one huge glaring error.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have two options to distribute software under the GPL. You can either: ship the full code with every binary or you can ship the binary alone but commit to provide the source code to anyone who requests it. Whether you are distributing the code unmodified, or have extensively modified it, doesnt matter in the least.
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't a violation (Score:5, Informative)
If your software were a compiled language (eg c/c++/java etc.) then if they didn't provide the original source OR didn't provide it on request by you AS A CUSTOMER (the license is granting rights to the people they distribute to - ie customer), then they violate. If they have put the php through some code obfuscator and don't provide the original source before obfuscation, then this would come under the "compiled" category i'd say. What they are doing is perfectly legal under the GPL.
If it's nice to do or not is another matter, but it doesn't violate GPL unless they do the above.. and this ONLY applies to people they distribute the product to - i.e. that person gains the rights under the GPL and if they do not follow through with them they violate the GPL as the license was distributed to them.
The idea that everyone must make the source of their GPL product available for free is not enshrined inside the GPL at all. It's simply something many do because its simply easier and more practical, less work, or it is nicer to the community that provided them with the source to begin with, but nowhere in the actual legalities of the license does it require this (3rd parties in this case means only 3rd parties you distribute the program to, not all 3rd parties in the world).
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
See what GNU has to say [gnu.org]. Note this quote from the second paragraph:
You are right that you can only charge a distribution fee, but that doesn't mean you can't charge as much as you want. The only limitation is that if you distribute the binary separate from the source, then you cannot charge customers extra for the source beyond what it costs to ship/distribute it (see 3b in the GPL v2 [gnu.org]).
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
Due to the truly amazing amount of information in your post that is inaccurate, I assume that you are either ...nevertheless, I'll provide some answers. Maybe it will be helpful for the OP.
1) a troll, or
2) 13 years old
Did the guy mention that he copyrighted his work? If he put it out there with nothing indicating that, there's an argument that he put it into the public domain,
If you don't trust me, how about the US Copyright Office [copyright.gov]?
Q: Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
A: No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
You go on...
If someone is violating the GPL license and selling a modified version of his work, I'd recommend he contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who can help defend him, most likely free of charge.
While the EFF [eff.org] are a bunch of hoopy froods who protect our rights in cyberspace, they are certainly not the first people I'd contact about a GPL infringement. They're not even the 4th or 5th on my list.
Here's my list:
1) GPL-Violations.org [gpl-violations.org] - Volunteers, knowledgeable folks who will answer your questions pretty quickly
2) The SFLC [softwarefreedom.org] (Software Freedom Law Center) - Volunteer lawyers (much slower to respond due to demand, but they know their stuff)
3) The Software Freedom Conservancy [slashdot.org] (if you want to align your FOSS project with a "non-profit home and infrastructure for FLOSS projects.")
4) The Free Software Foundation [fsf.org], if you have a specific question about some of their GPLed software
5) Bradley Kuhn, Harald Welte, etc..
Have you even read the text of the GPL(v2) ?
No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write, though you may charge a distribution fee, and you must provide a way to access the source code you're distributing. If some a-hole is charging $50-ish bucks for your software, take him down.
Here's an exact quote from the on the FSF's website: [gnu.org]
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
When you mention a "distribution fee," I believe that you're talking about clause 3(b) [gnu.org] of the source requirement of the GPLv2 (relevant section italicized):
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Section 3(b) is talking about a requirement to provide source code to people you've already given binaries. You can still charge them a bunch of money up front for initial access to the program.
It's not always easy to understand parts of the GPL, and the GPLv3 made the whole darn thing a bunch
Re:You can sell GPL software (Score:2, Informative)
In this case, it's irrelevant. This is a Drupal module (PHP), so it *is* the code.
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
There was a valid reason though. It was to prevent incomplete works from leaking and being legally redistributed, before the creator(s) put the copyright notice on.
GPL software CAN be SOLD (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing about it is that while selling the software, they cannot restrict the future distribution of binaries w/ source to third parties. In other words, let's say this Drupal software was sold for $1000 to a customer, who decided to recoup his costs by selling it to 15 customers that he knows for $100. The guy who sold him that cannot stop him from such an act. The only thing that they can be prevented from doing is distributing the binaries w/o the source - that is what violates the letter & the spirit of the GPL.
The above statement that people are encouraged to sell GPL software is used by the FSF to try and demonstrate that they are not anti-business. While on the surface, that is true, the above example clearly proves that if the objective is to sell software, the GPL is a bad model to use, since it prevents downstream distributors from putting any distribution restrictions on their customers, thereby allowing such customers to become competitors and stealing what could be their marketshare. All that said however, there is nothing that the GPL does to discourage people from selling their software, as long as the requirement that source always accompanies binaries is adhered to. (Somewhat ironically, GPL does not require the converse - if you distribute just the source code of a program w/o compiling it, it still qualifies as free under the FSF definitions).
Re:ddos (Score:2, Informative)
Not all places are so good about it - I worked for a where the VP of Engineering once sent an email saying essentially "Use whatever you want, and if it is a grey area, we assume in our favor. We'll ignore problems until we have to deal with them." That was the only way to make their deadlines. I saved that email as a CYA because I didn't want my name associated with the actions of GPL violations (and I wasn't the only one to....)