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.
Comments
The packaging scripts will
The packaging scripts will automatically add the LICENSE.txt file to your project. I haven't checked to see if a release must first be created, but I think the LICENSE.txt is added to the CVS directory as well as the tarball.
I am of course aware of that
I am of course aware of that the packaging scripts will automatically add the LICENSE.txt file to projects. My question was if that is enough to meet the requirement of paragraph 0 of GPL version 2.
Crell's request to "remove any references to a specific license from the code itself" seems to imply that. That seems reasonable. But is it permissible?
If I, as the copyright holder of a file, don't add a notice stating that the file is under GPL, how is the requirement that there must be a notice placed in the file by the copyright holder that says the file may be distributed under the terms of GPL?
Thomas Barregren – Webbredaktören
Procedural
Hi, Thomas.
Placing the license in the header is what the FSF would encourage, yes. However, the inclusion of the LICENSE.txt file is sufficient denotation, according to our lawyer.
The reason we ask that you do not put the header in the code is simply that it is then more difficult for us (me) to keep track of. We have to check file contents as well as the license field in project pages and manually added files. Also, were the license for Drupal and contrib to ever change to GPLv3 (which, since all code is currently GPLv2+ would be possible) we'd have to go back and change all the header files as well as the build scripts.
An in-file copyright header that says "GPLv2 or later" is not against CVS policy; it just means more work for Crell. :-)
Thank you for an assuring answer
Thank you Larry for your answer. Knowing that this has been discussed by our lawyer makes me feel assured that it is okay to remove the GPL notice.
Thomas Barregren – Webbredaktören
I don't think it's required,
I don't think it's required, but FSF encourages you to place a notice about the license in each source file, with the copyright notice. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC4
Copyright under GPL
Under GPL any programmer still be able to copyright it's own code. If developers will be forced to remove all notices from file header, it will means that Drupal core developers can claim copyright to everybody else work.
This sound is scare to me already.
Anybody care to collaborate on this?
Dr.Upal
That is exactly what is
That is exactly what is happening. Other Drupal developers are claiming a copyright interest in your code if that code happens to be implemented as a Drupal module, according to #7 for the Licensing FAQ.
However, the legal opinion expressed in FAQ #7 is not universally accepted, and has not, to my knowledge, been establish in any court of law.
Still, the GPL is generally a good thing, and you should use it as much as possible, and enforce it as much as is reasonable.
Also, the question is not actually a matter of Licensing or GPL, but of one's interpretation of the concept of "Derivative Works."
Drupal.org user profile
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
FUD
Matt, please stop spreading FUD. No one is claiming copyright on code you have written. FAQ #7 states, as confirmed with our attorney, that Drupal modules are a derivative work of Drupal and therefore must be distributed under the GPL, if they are distributed. That does not in any way shape or form transfer the copyright claim over any of the code involved.
No legal opinion expressed anywhere on any subject is "universally accepted", and the vast majority of legal opinions, which are given by lawyers to their clients several hundred times a day, never see a court of law. The reason lawyers spend so long in law school is so that they are able to give valid, informed legal interpretations when asked by their clients (us). If everything a lawyer ever said was considered safe to ignore until a judge ruled on it, the entire legal system would grind to a halt.
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
It seems to me the Fear started when the DA Council affirmed the wild idea that they have a right to force developers to use a certain license for their own property.
Uncertainty and Doubt are better than False Certainty, in my opinion.
Let's say I'm spreading Freedom, Understanding, and Doubt (the healthy kind), okay?
To the point,
I'm not sure if there is a nuanced difference between "a copyright claim" and "copyright interest." I may have written imprecisely. I only meant to point out that that FAQ #7 makes demands upon developers in regards to how they may use their own work.
I must disagree. In fact, I believe that many corporations and law firms operate under this very assumption every day, when the lawyer being ignored is the one hired by their competitor.
That's why it's key that you trust the ability and insight and objectivity of your own lawyer.
I do not trust the lawyers who prepared the FAQ, so I have sought other legal opinions, and have expressed them here.
Most lawyers are not paid to speak the truth; they are paid to defend their client's own position by any possible means. When the lawyers are working pro-bono, you can be certain it is their own interests and ideologies that they are working for.
That's why a law firm founded by board members of the FSF can not be considered objective in matters relating to interpretation of the GPL. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy or anything; just the natural implications of an entrenched position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen
But wikipedia has been wrong on occasion, I'm told, so I encourage you to Doubt me and check the facts yourself. I did.
PS - GPL is good. Write lots of GPL code. I do.
Drupal.org user profile
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
Considering that the FAQ
Considering that the FAQ doesn't force you do write any Drupal code at all why don't you just stop writing Drupal code? Have you considered to write <insert other, non-GPL project> code instead? Seems that would be the most elegant solution.
This attitude of 'if you
This attitude of 'if you don't agree with my opinion/ideology, go find another community' is disturbing to me. "Why can't we all just get along?"
No one is trying to fork or be disruptive or destructive here.
Why should we push away anyone who wants to contribute valuable resources to the community?
Just because you seemingly happen to believe that software usage should never have a monetary cost doesn't mean that all proprietary development is bad for the community or the world at large. Arguments to that affect have been made elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here.
Also, I love Drupal, I love the GPL, and I know of no better framework in existence that I would rather work with. I honestly believe it is the best choice for my clients 9 times out of 10.
Of all the code I've distributed ever, probably 90%+ of it is GPL, and probably 99% is Free & Open. (Granted, I don't code full time, so that body of work is much smaller than many here.)
I know my opinions are somewhat unpopular (though one unscientific poll currently shows that only 46% of respondents agree with FAQ #7), but I'm not the one telling others to leave if they don't like it. I will continue to cooperate with the community to the best of my ability, complying with the licenses I receive to the best of my understanding.
I'm sorry you don't get it, and I'm sorry you have feel the right to force people out of the community the way you have done. Thats very sad. I don't consider you my enemy, Gerhard. I'm very grateful for the work you do for the community, and I wish we could find common ground for dialog, but it doesn't seem to be working.
I stand by most position that "the most elegant solution" would be a growing, free, open, and welcoming community that encourages both volunteers and entrepreneurs to participate in whatever way they desire. Not a community where too few people wield too much power, and exercise that power to threaten and shut down projects that only have good will.
Kindest Regards,
Matt
Drupal.org user profile
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
I don't want to start an
I don't want to start an aside argument here, but I really have to comment here on:
This isn't true. Lawyers most certainly are not paid to defend client positions by any possible means. In every legal system that I am aware, lawyers are officers of their courts, and have very well defined rules of procedure and conduct. Straying outside the lines too far or too often leads to censure or disbarment.
Further, at least in the US, I know of no reason one should be "certain" that a lawyer's pro bono work is always aligned with his or her interests and ideologies. In some jurisdictions, attorneys represent cases on a pro bono basis as part of a public defender system, for instance.
You're right; I spoke too
You're right; I spoke too broadly in making my point, and the public defender system is a good example.
However, even in that situation, the lawyer is not in a position to express even his own own perception of the truth; his obligation is to defend his client by whatever legal means he can.
This does not refute the assertion that the SFLC's close association with the FSF is likely to cloud their objectivity in interpreting the GPL. One might view this as a good thing, if one is also ideologically bound to the FSF. While I respect and appreciate much of the work of FSF, I do not follow in lock-step.
Also, I am very understanding of the fact that the SFLC's job was not to objectively interpret the GPL in relation to Drupal. It was to define an FAQ which could be used to defend the interested of the DA council who desired to have an FAQ. After the fact, the DA council sought community feedback. (or if they sought feedback previously, I missed it, which is possible. Communication channels aren't clearly defined.) I think things we're done a bit out of order, but I'm not confused at all about what happened or why. I joined this group simply to voice my dissatisfaction with the results.
For the record, the community has improved in this regard. The current discussion regarding the forthcoming trademark policy is a much better approach, in my opinion, and I have much more faith in the results of that process.
Drupal.org user profile
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
Do not put words in our mouth
The specific question we asked our attorney was what were the implications of using the GPL, "in a manner that is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the GPL". That is actually the exact quote that was used, deliberately so as to minimize any particular individual person's bias. Please do not make up conversations that occurred between us and our attorney for which you were not present. All you are doing is undermining you position by making things up out of thin air.
The copyright FAQ was not released for public review precisely because it is not a matter of opinion or "what do we want to do", but "what does the law actually say in this case". It wasn't the DA imposing its wishes on the community, but the DA doing the research to see what limitations we were already under by virtue of using the GPL and having over a thousand copyright holders.
The trademark policy is different, in that as Dries and Dries alone holds the trademark he can legally license it (or not) in whatever manner he chooses. For that he is inviting feedback, because we do have a great deal of flexibility in how the trademark policy is established and want to establish a policy that is acceptable and beneficial to the entire community while still taking the steps required by law to defend and preserve the trademark.
Admittedly I drew some
Admittedly I drew some conclusions based on my experience of engaging this issue over the past couple months. I stand by my assertion that the DA council received insufficient advice, and should seek further counsel about the possibility of revising this policy. I've seen no evidence that anyone intends to do that, so it still seems to me to be a case of a few exerting their will on the many. If the decisions were made out of fear or confusion or whatever, I'm very forgiving of that, and I would love to see the issue revisited by another lawyer. I suggest the council consult with Larry Rosen to start. I'm open to being wrong, but I've never yet heard a sufficient legal explanation for the current state of FAQ #7 that takes into account real case law.
If the FAQ is intended to answer the question "what does the law actually say in this case," as you say, then it has not met it's purpose, because the law does not say that modules are "derivative works" in every case. Generally, from what I've read, the case law has held that a copyright holder can not impose licensing requirements on applications that make use of it's open API, and the law doesn't care about things like inter-process communication and shared memory space. The FSF might have a different feeling, but that doesn't make it law.
If you wish to take into account the "spirit of the GPL", you've also missed the point that the GPL FAQ itself admits that the question whether two sets of aggregated code make up one work or two is not easily answered, and will ultimately come down to a court ruling.
But I doubt business actually care about the "spirit" of anything. The greater concern is, "What am I actually legally obligated to do by accepting this license?" When it comes runtime modules, I don't believe that question is answered yet, and we should be honest about that, and encourage the business community to contribute to the Drupal community however they see fit, under their own legal counsel.
Drupal.org user profile
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000