Legal

I'd like to release a couple of themes through d.org. All my themes are built using Eric Meyer's browser reset stylesheet which is in the public domain. I'm also thinking about incorporating public domain images in my themes, such as photographs from the NASA archives. At the same time I'm aware of the restriction that only GPL'd files are allowed into the repository. What am I to do?

There is a very old issue in the webmaster's queue (http://drupal.org/node/178776) about creating a privacy policy. With the docs team gearing up for a lot of work and survey action, bekasu felt we really needed to do some CYA and so she wrote up a comprehensive privacy policy. I've attached it to the issue and wanted to point this group to it since we need to obviously get legal review as well as figuring out what we really need in there and what we can chop off. I'm in no position to have anything meaningful to say, so hand it over to legal.

It took several iterations and various lawyers but here is another draft of what will become the Drupal Trademark Policy. We did our best to incorporate many of the suggestions that were provided in response to the previous draft. As a result, this is a substantial update and I encourage you to read it carefully.

Hello

We have been asked to write a module that will connect to a 3rd party API on a separate server, using SOAP. The API is part of a closed source .NET application. The module cannot function (or even be installed) unless it retrieves data from the 3rd party API.

The license agreement for the 3rd party software strictly prohibits distribution and/or unlicensed access to the API, documentation etc.

There is an old issue in the docs queue (http://drupal.org/node/219053) about upgrading the CC license from 2.0 to 3.0. I'm not sure a) whether it is needed or b) if we could legally do it. Feedback one way or the other would be great so we can close that issue.

bertboerland recently found that someone has created a Drupal API iPhone app. In the iTunes Store, it is sold for $1.99 and says "Copyright 2008 Sehat Rosny." I'm pretty sure this is a big no-no since on api.drupal.org, it says specifically, "All source code and documentation on this site is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 and later. Drupal is a registered trademark of Dries Buytaert." I e-mailed Apple about the violation so hopefully it is removed. I like the idea, but it's just not done correctly. Note the author also has done the same for PHP and Apache documentation. I haven't looked into either of those to see if they are violations as well.

We have created a fairly involved Drupal distribution that we use to build client sites. Currently we are using the database copy method to start new sites. We have been working on a true installation profile so the recipe can be distributed the Drupal community.

A lot of work has gone into this and the main thing we want to avoid is someone taking all this work and claiming it as their own. Basically, we want to maintain attribution back to the authors.

After reading thru the CVS pages and licensing FAQ's - there's one thing I'm not clear on (this is more a general question rather than a drupal one).

If you have a drupal module licensed under Apache 2.0 it can't go in since that is not GPLv2 compatible - that I understand.

But - as the copyright holder - can such a license just be switched? Where no others have contributed - can I just switch out Apache 2.0 to GPLv2 ?

Would it have to apply for a given version and on (the version where the license changed) ?

I'm doing a bunch of work on the apachesolr module at the moment. One area where I'm really t a loss is how to treat the .xml configuration files. There original "example" files are part of the Apache 2.0-licensed distribution of Solr. So, while our current versions bear only little resemblance to these examples, they are clearly "derived" from them. In fact, it's hard to imagine a practical way one could generate a configuration file that is not "derived" form the example files provided (since the docs tend to be a little scarce).

Hi Everyone, I'm new and would appreciate a little light shone on a few things for me...

I am an Australian budding feelance web designer and couldn't believe my luck when I stumbled across Drupal! I'm not much of a programmer you see so to be able to create dynamic content this easily is a dream come true. However... After reading the legal FAQ's I have a few concerns.

Hello:

We've developed a drupal module that uses 3rd party php libraries and a jQuery plugin. The module serves the purpose of stamping an uploaded

PDF documented for a drupal user.

The php libraries and iQuery plugin used are
FPDF 1.53 (http://www.fpdf.org) - This is a freeware license
FPDI 1.2 (http://www.setasign.de/products/pdf-php-solutions/fpdi) - Licensed under Apache License, Version 2.0
FPDF_TPL 1.1.1 (http://www.setasign.de/support/manuals/fpdf-tpl/introduction) - Licensed under Apache License, Version 2.0

So the short term is close to pass from December 2006 - any updated plans to incorporate in places other than Belgium?

Is Drupal a registered US 501(c)(3)?

No, as stated above, the Drupal Association has been incorporated in Belgium. We will explore ways of having sister / daughter organizations in different countries and what that means for different tax implications, but is not likely something we can tackle in the short term....

Hi,

I am currently looking into using Drupal as a framework for Web
Application development. However, I was hoping that I could get some
clarification as to my potential obligations for modules that I would
develop under contract for my clients. My understanding according to
Licensing FAQ Question 8 (http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q8) is that my
obligation under the GPL extends to delivering the module to the client
under a GPL license and that I am under no obligation to distribute it any
further.

Is that a correct reading of your intent with regard to that FAQ question

As announced, I've been working with the Software Freedom Law Center, lawyers, and the Drupal Association on drafting a public trademark policy for use of the Drupal trademark. We're all happy with the current draft, so this is the time to open it up to the community to get further input and feedback. Please read it carefully, and let us know if you have comments or suggestions. This policy is obviously an important one as more and more people starting abusing the Drupal trademark. Thanks!

Hello,

I am working on a base-theme yui-grids-framework.
First of all: there is such a project on D.o. already, but that one is a) dead, and b) suffering from the same thing I want to solve.

YUI grids is dristributed under BSD. From my tiny bit of legal knowledge, I recall that BSD can be relicenced as GPL.
In that case, I can simply do so, and then upload the results to Drupal.org CVS.

 A New York Times article "Ruling Is a Victory for Supporters of Free Software" (August 14, 2008, NY Times Business section, p. C7) reports a decision upholding an open source license that had lost in the lower court.  A pdf of the decision is available at the Findlaw website, at URL

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fed&navby=title&v...
This is not a broadly worded decision but the outcome points in the right direction, toward enforceability of an open source license.

I need a logo for my Drupal development business, and I'd like to design something that incorporates an image based on the Druplicon. Before I go ahead I need to find out what the policy is on this type of use.

I've queried the Drupal Association about this, and I expect them to give me the authoritative answer, but I don't know if I will get it quickly enough. Hence, I'm also asking here.

So we aren't supposed to put in a LICENSE.txt file which is not automatically generated for us. So my question is, where are we supposed to indicate that you wish your module to be release under affero gpl 3?

In the readme file for this module it says you have to download http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player

However, that is a non-gpl item? Is this allowed?

What are the restrictions, if any, on applications that interface with Drupal via XMLRPC?

I want to use Drupal as a paid service for building Web sites and communities. The Drupal instances and modules would reside on my server. So basically I would be acting as an Application Service Provider. If I pursue this endeavor I will likely end up using the Drupal core, some contributed modules, and several custom modules.

Does the GLP License require me to make available any of my custom modules, configurations or patches made to Drupal?

A couple of days ago, we who maintain a module or a theme that explicitly specifies GPL as the license on the project page, received an e-mail asking us to remove any text in the License field, to allow a newly introduced automatically generated link to appear. In the e-mail Larry Garfield also writes:

We also ask that you remove any references to a specific license from the code itself. Drupal.org automatically adds a LICENSE.txt file to all generated tarballs, which covers all code distributed through CVS.

That sounds reasonable. But is it permissible? The paragraph 0 of GPL version 2 start with following sentence:

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

I have always interpreted that sentence as that I, in capacity of copyright holder of a module or theme, in each source file of that module or theme, must put a line that states that the source code is licensed under GPL 2 or later. I am now wondering if that interpretation has been wrong or unnecessary strict?

To put it differently, is everything required by paragraph 0 of GPL version 2 really met when a file, without a notice saying it may be distributed under GPL, is checked out of Drupal CVS.

I am not a lawyer. Item #10 of the licensing FAQ asks a particular question (my emphasis throughout):

10: Can I write a "bridge module" to interface between Drupal and another system or library?

but then goes on to answer a slightly different one (with specific regard to incompatible licences):

Created this thread to discuss:

http://groups.drupal.org/node/12631

Why won't anyone else sign? What is missing / confusing / distasteful about it?

I will take the opportunity to say that i realize that upholding it in court would be difficult if not impossible, but it is mostly symbolic. Also, it's not truly effective until every single copyrigth holder of Drupal signs it. (And no one knows who they are; potentially thousands.)

But what's wrong with a gesture of "Hey, you can do your thing, and I won't bother you. Go ahead and make money; I won't try to take it" ?

Hi All,

I've been looking into some differences between Drupal/GPL and CiviCRM/AGPL and wanted register my thoughts for consideration and/or further clarification.

http://drupal.org/project/zend_feed

That requires a third party non free library. I am not trying to troll btw, please don't see this as that. For me to understand what is going on, i need concrete examples.

The way I understand this is:

1. if drupal talks to code at the php level that code must be GPL, it DOES NOT MATTER how the code gets to the server, if they are going to call each other all code must be GPL

2. this does not apply if the code runs on the client side, javascript,css,etc

3. web services are exempt

http://drupal.org/project/wysiwygpro

Is something like that allowed:
A) on drupal's CVS
B) at all?

The title says it all, is the licence allowing us to completely remove any link back to Drupal.org ?

[Removed due to lack of community support.]

What is the basis for the claim of http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7 ?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Primary fact: Whether or not something is a 'derivative work' is defined by copyright law, not by the license.

From my reading, it seems the question is far from settled in the United States in regards to software. It seems to me that the legal validity of the claim "Drupal modules and themes are a derivative work of Drupal" is suspect.

See, for a example, http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm for a lawyer's opinion which counters the claims of the Licensing FAQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License says that GFDL is the counterpart for documentation to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl, so I'm wondering if they are compatible, and if documentation published under GFDL may be packaged with modules in the Drupal.org repository?

Thanks,
Aaron Winborn
http://aaronwinborn.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License says that GFDL is the counterpart for documentation to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl, so I'm wondering if they are compatible, and if documentation published under GFDL may be packaged with modules in the Drupal.org repository?

Thanks,
Aaron Winborn
http://aaronwinborn.com/

http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/07/red-hat-asks-federal-court-to-lim...

http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/07/red-hat-asks-federal-court-to-lim...

More than simply reporting, “Package X uses license Y,” the FOSSology tool attempts to analyze every file within the package to determine its license. The license report is thus an aggregate of all of the different licenses found to be in use by a package. A single package may be labeled as “GPL” but contain files that use other licenses (BSD, OSL, or any of the hundreds of other licenses). Even if an exact license is unknown, the license may be identifiable by common license phrases.

http://www.fossology.org/

More than simply reporting, “Package X uses license Y,” the FOSSology tool attempts to analyze every file within the package to determine its license. The license report is thus an aggregate of all of the different licenses found to be in use by a package. A single package may be labeled as “GPL” but contain files that use other licenses (BSD, OSL, or any of the hundreds of other licenses). Even if an exact license is unknown, the license may be identifiable by common license phrases.

http://www.fossology.org/

This wiki page is a place for comments and links that are helpful for making Drupal sites compliant with the US COPA and COPPA laws. Please add your reviews of contributed modules and links to site recipes.

A user recently noticed there are no copyrights or TOS at d.o. Interested folks might want to weigh on on the Drupal webmaster's issue for Clarify Copyright status of content on Drupal.org's website.

Thanks,
Aaron Winborn

A user recently noticed there are no copyrights or TOS at d.o. Interested folks might want to weigh on on the Drupal webmaster's issue for Clarify Copyright status of content on Drupal.org's website.

Thanks,
Aaron Winborn

Please add questions here to ask of the SFLC on behalf of the Drupal Association. Keep them short, specific, to the point, and phased as questions that can be directed at SFLC more or less verbatim. Also, please do not list questions that are easily answered on the SFLC web site.

Important links:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/