Slashdot Mirror
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?"
posting on slashdot is like a DDOS for their site.
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.
coding is life
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.
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!
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
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.
...the Software Freedom Law Center
They exist specifically for evaluating and defending against this sort of infringement. They're experts, and their services are generally free.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
Two words: Stallman sword
GPL just says they have to provide the source code. They can sell it, no question.
Claiming it's their own might be a copyright violation but good luck fighting that one. They are not doing anything wrong by the GPL from selling it though.
License code and not understand what the license really means? Unpossible!
They can still charge anything they want for the download. Well that was easy, next?
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.
$ man woman *
-bash:
Because you were not so clear: Selling GPLv2 software is explicitly allowed to whatever price one wishes, you just have to ship the source (and the license information) with it. If you want that any user of a web application may have cost-free access to the source code, you should have licensed your work under the Affero GPL.
The infringement here is the false claim that the module was written by them. If they removed all license information from your software that would be an infringement as well (even if they attribute you as the author) because the GPL also demands that the license is shipped with the product.
As for dealing with infringement, I'm no expert, sorry. You should probably contact GPL Violations. They might help you.
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.
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
coding is life
"I don't care about money, I just don't want someone selling stuff that I released for free."
You have completely misunderstood the license. You can do nothing.
To everyone here who writes comments like, "I think the GPL says such-and-such", just read the fucking thing. Seriously, it's not a hard document to understand.
Simple, just get Stallman to sit in a chair in front of their office with a sign protesting their actions. The sheer stench alone will drive the company to the bargaining table.
This person modified development code and then doesn't release the completed version back to the community. Not only that, they're undercutting the original authors most likely because their cost of living is probably much less. It might be legal, but they ought to learn how to contribute or else this attitude will eventually erode opensource.
From the website the third party is offering "support configuration and installation" for $49 and does not appear to be claiming to be the author.
The module is a Drupal PHP module and is therefore making the source code available to the end user. Because it is GPL software they are allowed to modify it for their own purposes. He or she is therefore completely compliant with the GPL.
It is perfectly OK to sell services or even the actual GPL software for a billion dollars whilst a white persian cat is sitting on your lap, as long as you provide the source code to the party that pays for it.
End of (non-)story and a Merry Jeebusmus to you all.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Ask Slashdot for help
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).
--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
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?
I am John Hurt.
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.
Great Intellect...
"False. The source must be distributed if it is changed. Otherwise, it is not your responsibility. He was right, you are not."
Here's what the GPL2 says (/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2):
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
In case you didn't notice, selling the module doesn't qualify as noncommercial distribution.
Other than that, you're mostly right... except, the distributor
(a) must preserve copyright notice
(b) make rights under the GPL clear: the right to redistribute without royalty is included.
They need a reason to bomb Pakistan some more.
but seriously...
I got nothin.
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 not also receive a binary.
So they've made a derivative work of your GPL product, and as long as they provide the source code at no additional charge to anyone that they send their work to, and it is covered under the same license, then... well... that's what the GPL licenses them to do in the first place. If you wanted to piss the company off, and kill their business model, you could, if you really wanted to, purchase the license from them to obtain their modifications.... and because it must be GPL'd you could safely merge their derivative work into the main distribution tree and distribute it for free, and end up competing directly with them. In fact, actually, anyone even could do this... not just you. Of course, this is the chief reason why a lot of companies dislike the GPL in the first place, because they perceive it as "viral".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Only by following the terms of a valid license does one gain the legal right to redistribute copyrighted code. In this case, the only valid license available was the GPLv2. The license has not been followed, therefore the redistribution is copyright infringement. This interpretation was confirmed in Jacobsen v. Katzer, a case of such critical importance that every educated Subject of the Emperor who professes an interest in copyright law is obligated to become familiar with it.
Unfortunately, the infringing party described in the summary claims to be located in Pakistan. If this is true, Our Subject "cultiv8" will not be able to pursue a legal claim against the offender; copyright enforcement in Pakistan is notoriously lax, with many vendors openly selling "bootleg" videos, music and software. The ordinary remedies that would be applicable in US copyright infringement cases (DMCA takedown notices, Cease-and-Desist letter, or copyright infringement claims filed in a US court) are unlikely to succeed.
Our Subject may consider speaking with a free legal advocacy group (such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or the Software Freedom Law Center), or consulting a "law clinic" (freely available at many US courthouses on a regular schedule); however they will be unlikely to provide any effective recourse through legal channels. NEVERTHELESS, a solution is available that is so simple and so elegant that only a genius or a master of the obvious would suggest it:
"CrossMediaGlobal" uses PayPal as their payment processor. So contact PayPal's abuse department. Then wait while they (probably) do nothing.
As Emperor, We are glad to serve Our Subjects.
"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 legal challenges to its operation. From what I can gather, Swedish law changed or the interpretation of it did, and PirateBay was unable to be successful in its defence of its activities.
What concerns Slashdot about PirateBay is that whilst the owners of PirateBay may have made statements supporting "piracy", the actual operation of the site complied with the law at the time, and it seems that there was a determined attempt to "get" the site, and their opinions were used against the site operators. In the US this would raise freedom of speech issues.
You are probably correct in saying that "Slashdot" is anti-EULA. The GPL, however is is not a EULA. A EULA restricts your rights beyond normal copyright, whereas the GPL gives you greater rights than copyright provides, but you are expected to comply with the whole of the GPL in order to have those rights. There is nothing inconsistent in Slashdot supporting something giving you greater freedom than allowed by copyright.
Personally I am not "anti" copyright, and I don't think that "Slashdot" is either. What "Slashdot" probably would regard as a reasonable compromise is a restriction of the duration of copyright to somewhere between 15-20 years. One of the intents of copyright is to permit artists to be paid for their work, which it does, but also to ensure that ideas and thoughts get out into the public domain. In software that doesn't happen, because software is not supported for 70-90 years (the approximate duration of copyright at present) and becomes lost to public knowledge.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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:
.. that you'd probably be able to sue them to the very pits of inferno if you'd get one of the MAFIAA lawyers to sue them. Whether you actually have a case or not is not relevant for that. Before you ask yourself how to deal with this situation, ask yourself what your legal standpoint is and what you want out of this. As other posters have pointed out, legally you may not have much if anything to complain about. Have you tried contacting the "offenders" yourself to ask what they are doing and where you come in? You'd be surprised how often people actually positively react on such a query.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
He should use CC-BY-NC.
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.
"I just don't want someone selling stuff that I released for free."
You can't stop them from doing that. They are required to say it's your work, not theirs. They are required to be told that it's licensed under the GPL (once the sale is complete), but you CANNOT stop them from offering it for sale even though customers could get it from other sources at no cost.
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 correctly. cultiv8 should really sit down and read it [again], I'd say this is borderline just before a violation but they haven't actually violated anything from what I can tell (it's not like they make any explicit claims about the software) but if he finds a genuine violation the GPL provides him with a lot of power and options to deal with it.
just report them to the federal government (homeland security, immigration and customs enforcement, FBI, pick your bureau) and they will get raided by a SWAT team, dropped to the floor, and given automatic prison sentences of 30 years each (no need for trials when we are dealing with terrorism).
after all.
they violated your copyright.
Everyone is focusing on the $$ aspect of the submission, but what about the part where the OP says "claiming it was their custom-made module"?
Doesn't this mean that the original Copyright was stripped and that the authorship attribution has been falsified?
Distribution fee, sale... just a matter of semantics. But yeah, you are right - RMS himself has said that he encourages people to sell GPLed software for whatever they think their customer can afford. IIRC, he used a hypothetical figure of $1B to illustrate his point. In other words, I could sell Emacs to somebody who didn't know that he could get it from gnu.org itself, for whatever I thought I could get away w/ charging him
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).
It is not Drupal that is selling it as the poster claims, it is actually a company in Pakistan, and as has been posted elsewhere they appear to be selling support and not the software ....
Actually, the best way to sell GPLed software would be like Amway/Quixtar multi-level marketing schemes ;-) Just sell it once, and help your 'down-line' sell it to others. Wonder what RMS would think of it ;-)
Punch 'em in the troat.
The GPL is, really, a lot like water rights. Proprietary software is like water from a well, where the well owner controls access and distribution. Water from the nearby stream is free to all, as with GPLed software, but some collect and haul the water, charging their customers for the convenience of delivery.
If someone is able to redistribute my GPL'd code for cash, then I'd like to to find a different license that can offer protection against this sort of thing. Any suggestions?
I think the biggest problem here is one of attribution, that someone is selling another's work as their own. Another problem would be if they removed or changed the author information or license information from the package and/or code. If such is the case, then contact the appropriate groups like gpl-violations.org or the software freedom law center (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/) for advice or help. Passing off someone else's work as your own is at the least highly unethical, and in some cases illegal.
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 done well to put that old NT 3.51 under a GPL, so that owners of these 2 platforms could have continued to support them, maybe by hiring programmers to write any extensions, bug fixes or whatever other customizations might have been needed to extend their life, rather than migrate them to Linux or FreeBSD. I don't believe that MS would have been giving a great deal away, particularly in terms of user interface, since 3.51 used the same interface as Windows 3.1, and 4.0 and beyond used the Windows 98 UI. So MS could have GPLed that version, while keeping 4.0 and beyond proprietary. Since in 4.0, a lot of more functions migrated from user to kernel mode in order to make it more responsive, such an opening up would not have spilt Windows secrets to an extent that would have been damaging to MS.
And if MS so wanted, they could have very specifically released only the RISC source code of NT, w/o releasing the x86 version, which still had bits of assembly code in it. That would have protected their Wintel platform even more while they gave their RISC customers whatever they needed and said - here it is, now you're on your own.
On a separate note, I think that IBM too should have GPLed OS/2 once they decided that they could no longer do anything worthwhile w/ it. It might have helped others port it to platforms other than the PC, where Windows had one anyway.
Your insight and knowledge is appreciated.
17 USC 506 (d)
No, they are NOT stripping it of the GPL. In fact, they specifically point back to RJ's page as the source page to get the module. However, they provide a service to customize the software. Totally within the GPL.
This is a Google webcache link that, as of this writing, contains no link back to the original drupal module.
This is a screencapture of the cache.
This might indicate that the redistributor is making good faith efforts to comply with the GPL, now that they are aware of the violation.
The reference occurs on a different page.
However, the Google cache of that page has been cleared within the last few hours, although most other pages on "CrossMediaGlobal.com" have snapshots from 11 days ago. As of first posting, the Emperor believes that there was no reference to the original drupal sources. Furthermore, a single linkback is insufficient to fully comply with the GPL.
Clearly you have just joined Slashdot, logic and reasoning are frowned upon here. It's all about speculation and passing off gut feeling and anecdotes as facts.
The GPLv2 violations are the least of your worries -- they're laying claim to owning your work. That's blatant copyright theft, regardless of the license the software was provided under.
Sue.
Sue hard.
Sue fast.
Show no mercy.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The ironic thing about that is that one could put together a program, w/o even bothering to try & compile it, and then release it, and it would still pass, w/o being tested for whether it actually compiles or not. Reason could be anything - from syntax errors to invoking headers or libraries that are just not there. But more commonly, no good stable standardized API for developing GUI applications (like core Win32 API/MFC) exist: neither GTK nor Qt (incompatible 3,4,5 versions just for the last decade) strive to be backwards compatibile. So if one has the most recent versions of all libraries (presuming that it'll support older software relying on predecessors of these libraries), guess what? One is SOL. Which is why having source code, but not compiled binaries is not acceptable in the real world, while it may be within Stallman's bubble.
You make it sound pretty trivial, but for people who are not programmers, compiling source code is no trivial task, which is a part of the reason that most people don't bother about the license it's under. Recent programs like apt get, yumm, rpm, PBI, Portage, Pacman, et al have to varying extents served to alleviate that, although a problem that remains w/ much Linux software is it's being typically available in only one of these formats, rather than most, and giving the user tarballs if they're using anything else.
I appreciate the importance of source code being available, but it's just as important for the compiled binaries of that source to be available as well, so that one doesn't have to kick up bash shells and compile the stuff they want to use. There is a difference b/w giving an user the ability to study & fix the code they have, vs requiring them to do it if they want the software they need to work the way it's supposed to work. I know that GPL code (and a lot of FOSS) come w/ no warranty, but that's no excuse for distributing source code that doesn't even compile or link.
The GNU Public License (partially) waives distribution rights. In no way does it waive attribution rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright)
From what I have read here, I gathered you can do the following:
- Buy the software back from him, if it has changed at all. Otherwise, don't bother buying it and just use your own version.
- Add a page on your website claiming to give away the "commercial software" for free, completely legally. Add the modified name the other guy used to the page (I doubt he trademarked anything). Add a very clear note that the other guy actually sold the software without you approving of it.
- Spread the link around like crazy, for example, on any Drupal repositories, as "shopping software name FREE". Make sure it's noticed more than the software of the guy who is selling it.
The other guy might get pissed, but the above is entirely as legal as him selling your software. (Actually, him selling it is not legal as he claims HE wrote it, but hey, this method is much easier than going to court.)
I am not devoid of humor.
... not to mention other "free as in beer RHEL" respins like Scientific Linux, and, wait for it....
"Paid-for" Oracle Unbreakable Linux. As long as the GPL (or any of the other licenses for software within the distro) is not violated, they can do what they like. Red Hat changed their packaging methods to make it harder to keep re-spins up-to-date mostly because of Oracle.