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?"
All I'm doing is pointing out that Slashdot clearly has an anti-copyright position when it conveniently aids in the acquisition of things that its readers want--music, movies, and software--but is pro-copyright when it conveniently aids in the acquisition of free software as well as benefits an anti-commercial software position. Slashdot clearly has this position based on the consistent rate of pro-piracy/pro-GPL stories combined with the majority of highly-rated comments that are posted to those stories. This article, as well as your own post and its anti-copyright signature, are clear examples.
Slashdot's job is to cater to a specific kind of tech demographic in order to sell ads related to those topics. You are just a product--the customers are its advertisers. This site will always be posting anti-copyright articles, GPL violation articles, pro-Google articles, pro-Linux articles, Star Wars articles, etc. It's not even on the forefront of tech news--nearly every single link is posted on Hacker News and Reddit days before Slashdot publishes it. The so-called "Slashdot effect" also no longer exists as it once did, as the readership has diminished since the rise of user-voted content submission sites. The point being that most of the people still lingering on this site hold the more extreme viewpoints that Slashdot caters to, or else they would have left along with everyone else years ago. Just try legitimately praising Apple or Microsoft and see what happens to your karma. You used to be able to do that; not anymore.
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.
Piracy is not copyright reform; it's complete rejection of the copyright system. Slashdot is clearly pro-piracy in both the number of pro-piracy articles it publishes (particularly about Pirate Bay--the most recent submission conveniently included a link to a mirror of the site) and the upvoted comments that are posted to those stories.
The problem with dismissing the copyright system is that the GPL is a copyright license that depends on copyright law to have any legal power. Ironically, it's also a EULA for developers--yet Slashdot is also anti-EULA. The point being that Slashdot as a company doesn't care about being consistent; it only cares about riling up its readers and generating page views. And because readers are so riled up, they don't notice how inconsistent their own positions are.