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?"
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
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.
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:
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
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" --------------------
In this case, it's irrelevant. This is a Drupal module (PHP), so it *is* the code.
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).
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....)