Ask Slashdot: How Best To Deal With a GPLv2 License Infringement?

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?"

You can sell GPL software

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people release software under a license and then ask basic questions like this? Particularly, why do they need to ask Slashdot all the time?

The guy can try to sell your module all he wants, provided that a) He hasn't altered the copyright you placed on it (You did put a valid Copyright on each source file, in the GPL header, right?) and b) He makes the GPL sources available to anyone who has purchased a copy of the module and has then requested them, or anyone who has received a copy of the module and has requested them.

Basically, he can't claim its his and he can't change the license, but if anyone is dumb enough to give him cash for something they could get for free elsewhere, that's their problem. If you're still not sure, contact the FSF. Or, hell, just read their damn website!

Re:You need to contact...

[Anonymous Coward]

What GPL infringement?

Guys, no need to speculate about what GPLv2 says

[Dwonis]

To everyone here who writes comments like, "I think the GPL says such-and-such", just read the fucking thing [gnu.org]. Seriously, it's not a hard document to understand.

Cognitive Dissonance: My Favorite Term

[bky1701]

People cry about groupthink, which is one thing; but then people like you cry slashdot doesn't follow its "groupthink" on all possible matters in the way they expected slashdot to follow it. Essentially, you're complaining slashdot is not the stawman you keep making it. The fact slashdot has people with opposing views on it is not a flaw. The fact slashdot has people on it with a more nuanced view on the matter than outright-shameless-pirate or RIAA-media-executive is not a flaw. I would say the problem is cognitive dissonance in the people who keep complaining about slashdot, not in slashdot itself.

Before you complain about my signature; I oppose the existence of copyright and am for its immediate and total abolition. I support the GPL until that happens to turn the system on itself and avoid allowing copyright holders to abuse software I write or contribute to. These positions do not conflict, but to some people, they are taken to in order to complain.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance: My Favorite Term

[bky1701]

"As for your claim that your positions do not conflict, they most certainly do--you are in favor of the abolition of copyright, yet you are also in favor of a copyright license that requires copyright law to have any legal power. Without copyright, the GPL would have no legal power and would be unenforceable."

Really? That's amazing. You must know my position better than I do - since that is obviously not what I said:

"I oppose the existence of copyright and am for its immediate and total abolition. I support the GPL until that happens to turn the system on itself and avoid allowing copyright holders to abuse software I write or contribute to."

I don't know how you got what you claim I think out of that, so I am inclined to say you're lying about what I said in order to attack my position as a stawman, and I don't take kindly to that. The rest of your post is basically the same, so you're full of shit. Go away.

Re:ddos

[kthreadd]

Actually, just politely asking them to comply with the license is probably a better way to start. It may very well be an honest mistake from their side.

Re:ddos

[mrjb]

Yes, it must have been an honest mistake. "Sorry, I thought I wrote this stolen code myself". Happens to me all the time!