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?"
ddos (Score:5, Funny)
posting on slashdot is like a DDOS for their site.
Re:ddos (Score:4, Funny)
Kill them! We MUST KILL THEM!
Oh, wait. No, we do that for a GPLv3 infringement.
For GPLv2, we just send them a nasty email and egg their mother's house.
Re:ddos (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When I worked for <Fortune 500 Tech Company>, we spent a lot of time making sure this didn't happen. Every single release involved an audit for new open source code and the lawyers had to sign off on each and every one. This was both to ensure that we were complying with the license and to give them a chance to reject license they felt were too onerous (i.e. GPL-3). Still, it's not hard to imagine something slipping through the cracks. I'm sure there are companies which don't care, but most places
Re: (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....)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing worse than being slashdotted would be space crowbars. I don't know why cultiv8 bothered with slashdotting, when the crowbars would have been so much faster.
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.
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: (Score:2)
Actually, Drupal modules should not include a LICENSE.txt -- the GPL is already included at the root of the Drupal install, which the module is installed under.
It's considered a module bug in the Drupal community to include a LICENSE.txt.
Re: (Score:3)
"4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Progr
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I forgot -- the way it works is that the LICENSE.txt is automatically included when the module is packaged by the system -- that's why module authors shouldn't include it themselves.
But way to take any opportunity to rag on Drupal -- seems to be the thing to do around here. :)
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a quick look at the Drupal repository itself, you'll find the statement "Please note that all code which is committed into a Drupal repository must be covered under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or greater; the same as Drupal itself."
The only halfway interesting question out of this post seems to be, if you submit your work to a repository which requires all submissions to be GPL, will it be GPL even if you don't explictly declare it as such? I would assume not, as most
Re: (Score:2)
"This whole argument about the works license is, of course, mostly moot since obviously as the Drupal licensing FAQ http://drupal.org/licensing/faq [drupal.org] puts it..."
The Drupal project saying so doesn't make it true. The modules and themes would only be derivative works if distributed with Drupal. There is no reason a Drupal compatible API couldn't be made and these independent chunks of code run on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The parent's advice is almost correct... if you want to distribute under GPLv2, do *not* add the "or (at your option) any later version" or someone else could redistribute it as GPLv3 and then you wouldn't be able to re-integrate their changes into the GPLv2 baseline. If you like GPLv2, make sure you only distribute it under GPLv2 or you lose control.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It should tell you something that the only genuinely 'free' hardware RMS found was from a Chinese company, since no other company in the world provided his version of a free computer.
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)
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]).
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: (Score:2)
They're charging a $50 distribution fee. To cover the cost of charging a distribution fee ... like how the toll booths collect tolls ... to pay for the cost of the toll booths.
If you don't like it, then you have several options:
1 Distribute under a different license;
2. Don't distribute at all - run it as SaaS (Software as a Service) off your own server, and optionally charge a fee;
3. Distribute an obfuscated version [wikipedia.org] so that it's almost impossible for them to modify it.
Exercise your perl-fu by writ
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what he's saying. It's true.
What exact business do you think Red Hat is in? Surely you don't think that they make all that stuff, right?
C//
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are only legally required to provide the source code to parties you have sent binaries to.
Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first? Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it. (Actually, v3 restricts it to people who've managed to get the object code, but they don't have to have got it from you.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first?
I don't know, why do you?
Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it.
Wrong. You have to do one of two things. Distribute the source with the binaries, OR provide a written offer of sourse to anyone who requests it. From the GPL FAQ [gnu.org] (bold mine):
"If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later."
Re: (Score:3)
Multi level marketing sales for GNU software (Score:3)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you DO run it through a good obfuscator you can reduce the size by up to 80%, so it downloads quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL2: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.".
A program ran through an obfuscator is not source, according to both common sense and the wording of the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, for scripts, plain ASCII text is "good enough." You CAN edit them, as opposed to a binary blob.
Besides, scripts (whether php, python, javascript, what
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it matters. If you haven't modified the binary you can 'provide the source' by providing an offer that links back to the original project (technically you'd still be required to provide a physical media if requested under v2). If you yourself got your copy with such an offer you can provide unmodified copies with copies of the offer you received.
Also supplying an offer to supply the source does NOT mandate providing the source to ANYONE who request it. Only to those who have received a copy of the
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:5, Informative)
link [gnu.org]
Troll elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Does stop people claiming it was made by themselves
Neither copyright law nor GPL stop plagiarism. They are about the right to copy, not misrepresentation or fraud. It's a common misconception that copyright stops plagiarism. It can be used against plagiarism, yes, rather like using tax evasion against drug dealers. Copyright extremists use this misunderstanding to further their own agenda of extorting money from us all for our own art and science.
I find the GPL idea of charging for distribution naive. The Internet has made distribution into a trivial
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that the above only applies to US Federal copyright law. In some states (although generally only for a subset of types of work), and in most of Europe, copyright also includes the concept of Moral Rights. These include the right of the author to be identified with the work, so in many jurisdictions plagiarism (i.e. not giving the author credit) are explicitly covered by copyright law.
At the Federal level, the USA does not recognise moral rights - make of that what you will.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. This is just like the situation with the RIAA/MPAA cartels: $20 for a physical CD made sense, when that was all that was available. With the Internet, expecting people to pay more than, say, 99 cents per song just leads people to piracy.
That said, people are more than welcome to try to charge obscene costs for distributing GPLed s
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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, but if he copyrighted the project in a README file or in the core code files, he's covered. 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.
Jesus... It's amazing what crap a first poster can say. 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.
You sir just won the award for Slashdot's 2011 Posts With Highest Percentage of Factually Incorrect Statements. Congratulations!
Re: (Score:2)
The ignorance in this post is stunning.
By default, nowadays, all creative works are considered copyrighted. I believe this traces back to the Berne convention in 1976. Putting an "all rights reserved" notice on it is merely prudent, not required.
Of course you can sell GPL software. There's nothing differentiating charging a "distribution fee" from "selling" it. Ever go into a brick-and-mortar computer store and see all the Linux distributions available? Do you not think that RedHat, SuSe, Ubuntu, &c., a
Re:Where is your license mentioned? (Score:4, Interesting)
The headers are important. I've seen many pieces of code where people only put a copyright in a LICENSE file, and a subsequent package manager stripped it (it should be assumed that unless it's being downloaded in binary format only, that neither the LICENSE nor the headers will be read, but can be referenced.)
For reference –those package managers are in violation of the GPL –to redistribute GPL'd code you must make sure you preserve the copyright notice. This is in fact probably the single most important bit of the license!
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect this guy is out of luck. As you point out there are various ways in which this group could have botched things up that would violate either copyright law or the GPL, but he gives no indication that is the case.
From what I've read this guy may be thinking about this the wrong way. The reason these people are able to charge for this software (from a 'the market can support such actions' point of view, not a legal point of view) is they are offering support. In short his little bit of drupal code is
Cognitive Dissonance: My Favorite Term (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Slashdot is, as far as the hivemind can be said to hold any position, in favor of copyright reform. There is no consensus on what that should look like, generally either abolishing it altogether or restricting it to a term similar to that of patents. In either case, free and/or open licenses are considered a useful middle ground, though proponents of abolishment tend to favor BSD over GPL.
But then, given how long you've been around, you already knew that.
Re: (Score:3)
"Slashdot" and copyright (Score:2)
"Slashdot" (by which I mean the majority of site members, not necessarily the site operators themselves) is probably pro PirateBay because PirateBay does nothing that Google doesn't. It is a search engine, pure and simple, and identifies available torrents. You can in fact find exactly the same links on Google as PirateBay puts on its site.
Since it is not based in the USA it does not have to follow US based DMCA requirements. It was originally based in Sweden, and until recently successfully fought off lega
Drone strike (Score:5, Funny)
You can buy a scale Predator drone for less than $1000 and a basic AI package for it for maybe half that. A few flybys and maybe a leaflet drop should be sufficient.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"You ever price a hellfire or a maverick? Them damned things ain't cheap friend"
Which is exactly why the argument that certain classes of weapon shouldn't fall under the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. The purpose is to arm the people to fight the government and weapons that allow it should be freely available. Of course serious weapons take serious bank and with serious bank comes a serious interest in not rocking the boat OR takes a significant group of people all contributing funds like a citizens militia.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"if they would have tried to fire that thing the backblast have blown them up real good"
It's called natural selection. Best to just let it happen.
"I mean can you imagine some methhead all paranoid with a pack of hydra missiles and a launcher?"
No I can't. If a methhead had a pack of hydra missiles and launcher he'd sell it for meth along with his momma and girlfriend. ;)
"But don't worry friend because if the government ever rolls the tanks i'm sure the national guard armories will be nicely emptied faster th
Where GPL of old software makes sense (Score:2)
As for TFA I'd say he's SOL. they are selling support and installation which is 100% fine and dandy by the GPL, just ask Red Hat. If you didn't want others to be able to profit from your work you should have released as a proprietary module and not the GPL.
The flip side of this though is why i think we'll never see a truly kick ass Linux desktop that can stand toe to toe with the polish of OSX and Windows, and that's because it takes millions of dollars worth of code to put that level of polish and with GPL somebody could just offer all the work you did for free if you built in on Linux which is why Jobs used BSD for Apple. that's why at least for me every time I try to deal with a Linux desktop it feels like a bazillion little programs all built without a care in the world in how they were gonna integrate together beyond CLI because...well that's pretty much what it is, tons of coders scratching personal itches instead of working together for a solid unified whole.
In the end the GPL is a double edged sword in that on the one hand it ensures that if you hand out code under GPL then under GPL it will stay but the flip side is nobody is gonna invest the insane levels of money it would take to make a truly integrated world class desktop out of it because like with Ubuntu there would be 50 free knockoffs and it would be damned hard to recoup your investment much less make a profit. i mean has Canonical even made a profit yet?
I agree w/ you, but I can think of at least one case where it would have made sense for companies to GPL code: once a software is either EOLed, or its support for a platform is dropped. I have a couple of cases in mind. Remember Windows NT 3.51 on RISC platforms - MIPS and Alpha? Microsoft dropped support for these platforms in version 4.0 when it migrated, after NEC & Compaq had dropped support themselves, leaving all existing users of those platforms high and dry.
In such a case, MS would have do
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like we can drop a miniature version of a N.U.K.E. [sluggy.com] of sorts (two parter) instead of just one or two leaflets. "The argument is weak but the repetition is compelling."
You can sell GPL software (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily ; see http://www.ioncube.com/ [ioncube.com]
That's a source code encryption tool that I've seen used several time in websites from clients of my hosting company.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "copyright". Copyright isn't something you "put" on a file, and what would a distributor even do that could "alter" someone else's copyright? If you don't understand the difference between a copyright notice and copyright itself, why are you lecturing others about saying stupid things on Slashdot?"
I think you are deliberately misconstruing what he said to serve your agenda. Obviously by "copyright" he meant the copyright notice and he is correct. He is i
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You need to contact... (Score:3)
...the Software Freedom Law Center [softwarefreedom.org]
They exist specifically for evaluating and defending against this sort of infringement. They're experts, and their services are generally free.
Re:You need to contact... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because no one can profit from selling other peoples gpl'ed code. Got that redhat, suse, debian, etc?
DEATH TO INFIDELS (Score:2)
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.
Re:Understand your choice of license... (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, they can even do something cleverer, like Redhat does: they are free to cancel any subscription/service agreement that you may have with them if you exercise your rights to further redistribution. It does not violate GPL, for GPL is about distribution and distribution only, and they are not hindering your right to that. If you subscribe to RHEL, you are of course free to redistribute any source RPMs you downloaded from their network, but if you do so, they are free to cancel your subscription. And they will if you're a big enough fish (say, if you'd try to run your own "clone" distro based on their SRPMS).
This seems to be a sensible business model even to people who'd wish to sell their stuff for big bucks: who the heck will abandon a multi-$k subscription by exercising their right to redistribute GPL code? No one sane; in most cases, unless they have plenty of money to burn. Ah, and IIRC Redhat will not renew your subscription if so terminated: you're essentially blacklisting yourself for life.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't block your access to the source (for the binaries they gave you) no matter what 'subscription' they terminate. That would be a GPL violation.
Also, SOMEONE obviously isn't concerned with this because they are packing up a clone named CentOS.
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.
Also (Score:2)
In the case of a script, which is what this seems to be, source code is provided automatically. Provide the script and you've provided the source as required.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely correct, but may I add that the GPL explicitly allows you to sell services on software or software as a service. Selling software bundled is OK as well as long as you distribute sources and retain the GPL, of course. In this case it's a little questionable how they are advertising it and there is no immediately available source they are linking to but they're right on the line before "breaking the rules" - it really comes down to how they respond when you ask them for sources or if they are using
Guys, no need to speculate about what GPLv2 says (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who uses the GPL a lot I tend to re-read it maybe twice a year. It really isn't a difficult document to understand and until you really sit down and read it you don't realize how great the terms are. People often mistake the GPL as being a license people use to just give away software, but that's not what it's about. It really does protect a lot of rights and give a lot of power to the creators of the software and it's aggressive approach to freedom really gives the creators an edge if used corre
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).
According to the summary, you missed one point. (Score:4, Interesting)
The code was stripped of its existing GPL and redistributed under a new license. Even though the source code is available (because PHP is distributed in source form), it's no longer clear that the code is still covered by the GPL - someone purchasing this package wouldn't know that they were entitled to redistribute or modify the code. That's the crux of the violation:
Re: (Score:2)
There was some question of whether the original script had the proper copyright notices (which aren't required, but are a good idea). The reason such notices are a good idea is that not only is it a "GPL violation" it is also against the law to remove copyright notices. I remember copyright notice removal to have penalties associated with it under the criminal code, actually, although it's been a long time since I looked at that...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the license is granting rights to anyone who might want to redistribute the software, or create a derivative work. The GPL is not an end-user license.
GPL software is copyrighted. By default, that means that nobody can legally copy it (fair use notwithstanding) without any sort of explicit permission from the copyright holder (or agencies authorized by the copyright holder). The GPL explicitly grants permission t
Dear Diay (Score:2)
Dear Diary,
Today I learned that some programmers attach licenses to their code, without ever reading the text of the license. Sadly, I find it to be on par with many congressmen, who vote for bills they've never read.
Who knows what I will learn tomorrow?
No case, I'm afraid... (Score:2)
If you are licensing your software under the GPL, then you are granting permission to everyone who abides by its terms to create derivative works of your software and distribute them however they desire, including selling them. The provisions of the GPL require only that one not charge any additional fees for the source code itself beyond, perhaps, material costs that might be involved in sending that code to them. They further are not under any obligation to distribute the source code to anyone who does
History has taught us... (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:2)
A simple analogy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you have to ship the source, you just need to make it available to anyone who's received the executable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You keep repeating that you must ship source to 'anyone' that requests it later. That technically isn't true even if it may practically be true.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid [gnu.org]
The first line says the same as you but the two paragraphs following that line modify it and clarify that it is only to those who have gotten a copy of the binary (and accompanying written offer) that you must provide the source.
There is no reason you couldn't put a code on the written offer and requi
Re: (Score:2)
you are right, other guy is wrong http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid [gnu.org]
He is reading the first line and ignoring the following two paragraphs that clarify that 'anyone' is actually 'anyone who got both a binary and copy of written offer' BUT the GPL allows the non-commercial copying and redistribution of both your written offer and your executable. So if I get a binary from you and provide my friend with a copy for free you have to provide source to him as well.
Re: (Score:2)
"Claiming it's their own might be a copyright violation"
Depends on where they claim it. They have to leave the copyright notice intact on the source file but they can spout whatever they want on the website.
Re: (Score:2)
"Claiming it's their own might be a copyright violation"
Actually, it's plagiarism. The only time plagiarism is not illegal is if the amount copied and the purpose of the copy would have collectively fallen under the "fair use" umbrella.