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.
However, first of all: third party code is discouraged in CVS. To avoid clutter, to avoid legal issues and so forth. This very project, however, is different in the way it uses the 3rd party code.
Rather then including a piece of PHP, or including a set of CSS files or anything like that, it will work mainly on, from and by these files. The INSTALL directives will most probably become longer and more complex then the whole rest of the projects code. Rather then providing a nice start-off theme for themers, we will have a large manual then.
My question therefore is:
Can I relicence this BSD code and put it onto the Drupal CVS?
Will this be frowned upon by the community?
Bèr
Comments
You cannot re/dual-license
You cannot re/dual-license something if you do not own its copyright. Otherwise, anybody would be able to relicense anything, so I'd be able to declare that Half-Life 2 is now public domain!
So unless you own or can somehow acquire the copyright to YUI, no, you cannot relicense it like this.
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Garrett is correct about the
Garrett is correct about the relicense question. However, BSD is typically copasetic with GPL. However, Drupal infrastructure frowns on third party applications in its CVS repository. You can provide instruction and methods to download the BSD library that you need for your module.
More specifically, they
More specifically, they disallow any third-party code (or images, documentation, whatever) which is not also under a GPL license. This is why jQuery, which is dual-licensed under both the MIT and GPL licenses, can ship with Drupal.
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Garrett is incorrect
You can re-license/sub-license something if you have a license to do so.
For example, the MIT license allows it. That's why http://drupal.org/project/htmlbox exists, though this is a fuzzy area that highlights the inconsistencies in the enforcement of Licensing policies.
The BSD license is not explicit about sub-licensing, but (IANAL) my understanding is that it is broad enough to encompass the GPL. So you could add GPL to your BSD-based reditribution, but you cannot remove the BSD notice from it.
Having additional licensing requirements (in this case, BSD's), I think, is frowned upon by the community. But if so, HTMLBox represents an exception, or else HTMLBox is probably not compliant with it's MIT license.
This gets into the idea of CopyLeft (GPL, MIT) vs non-CopyLeft licenses (BSD). You can add licensing restricitions to non-copyleft, but not vice versa.
$BSD .= $GPL //OK.
$GPL .= $BSD //NOT OK.
Drupal.org user profile
Portfolio: http://www.NinjitsuHosting.com/portfolio
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
Drupal.org user profile
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
I agree that HTMLBox appears
I agree that HTMLBox appears to be an inconsistency with regards to application of the GPL rule.
Are we sure, though, that "sublicensing" implies the ability to change the type and rules of the license? Is this a common practice with MIT-licensed wares?
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Re: Are we sure
I know that BSD is included in GPL projects. The newlib library has http://sourceware.org/newlib/COPYING.NEWLIB which includes several distinct licenses. The newlib library in turn is used by the Cygwin project which is GPL http://cygwin.com/licensing.html. I'm not as familiar with MIT though.
Not change (unless the
Not change (unless the licenses specifically says), but you can add to it. That's my understanding of sub-licensing, but really it's defined by the license itself.
I.e., if it says "You must include this notice", then you have to include the notice, presumably without change.
So MIT sub-licensing allows you to bring the project under GPL as long as you also retain the MIT notice. I don't know if HTML box does or not.
Drupal.org user profile
Portfolio: http://www.NinjitsuHosting.com/portfolio
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
Drupal.org user profile
Drupal Micro-blogging: http://twitter.com/matt2000
Exception needed
Redistributing BSD licensed code under the GPL is well-accepted as both legal and ethically kosher.
Drupal.org's CVS repository forbids the inclusion of 3rd party code regardless of its license. Exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis by the infrastructure team if there is a specific reason for it. In the case of HTMLBox, an exception was made because HTMLBox itself needed to be hacked to pieces and heavily modified in order to be included in the module, so it was already a fork to begin with.
If you feel your project should be granted an exception, please open an issue in the infrastructure queue to discuss it. See: http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q10
Thanks
The fact that it is
a) not entirely clear wether or not I could ship the code as GPL, (Garett seems to think I cannot, other seem to think I can, at the very least there is still a lot of confusion)
b) not allowed to ship 3rd party code into CVS, even if it is GPL,
made me decide to not host the project on D.o, but look for a Subversion-enabled project hosting site. This is not meant as critique, but simply a decision made on basis of "pragmatism". Any project host will do, for me, and I cannot afford long threads and discussions about whether or not I should be give an exception (I think I should not be granted that, in this case). So,
Thanks for your feedback.
Bèr
http://www.webschuur.com | http://bler.webschuur.com
Which leads to a question
Which leads to a question of: If your code isn't hosted on d.o. can the project page be created anyway?
No
As a matter of policy Drupal.org does not permit project nodes for projects not hosted on Drupal.org. That's not a copyright thing, just a decision made by the infrastructure team.
So a catch 22 for Bèr then.
So a catch 22 for Bèr then. I suppose a good example of external project management interlaced with internal project management would be Ubercart. One thing Bèr can think about is hosting the code without the TPL and offer the complete set externally. That is the real rub; Bèr can't create a complete package from an internal project unless the TPL is added to the project; but TPL is off limits in the project CVS.
IMO, this TPL thing needs more attention because it hinders good will. MIT, BSD and PD are all used by GPL projects. There is no reason to make it a hardship for Drupal module contributors to use them. I guess that is the reason CiviCRM isn't supplying Drupal updates via the internal civicrm project page; you don't find a version for D5 but I know they offer it.
Not having a project page for Bèr's package will mean that Bèr's package is looked at as distrustfully. No one wants that to happen. AFAICT Bèr creates some good code.
What do you mean by TPL?
What do you mean by TPL?
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Third Party License
Third Party License
To be clear, under my
To be clear, under my understanding, it's kosher to ship the code with a GPL project. However, the code will still be under the BSD license; it does not adopt the GPL license. It can't be relicensed. So the code cannot be shipped as GPL code, no, but it can be shipped with GPL code.
Earnie's question is intriguing. I'm guessing many people would object to that, especially if the project page said something like "To download this module, go to this other site (so I can skirt D.o's rules)."
I think the best path to take would be the one that others have taken when confronted with this problem; host the module you wrote at D.o, but prominently display on your project page and in your docs that folks have to go to Yahoo's site (or wherever) to download the non-GPL third-party code to make the module useful.
Interestingly, I did come across a license the other day which does appear to permit relicensing by others; the WTFPL - Do What The F&$% You Want To Public License (NSFW). I'm currently writing a module which includes a third-party jQuery extension which is covered by this license. Should I end up distributing the project (it's for a client, so I'll probably want to get their permission first), I'll exercise the license's provision to do what the f&%! I want to and relicense it as GPL to host on D.o. Will I get away with it? It might be a test case…
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Test case?
There have already been test cases, and modules have been removed from CVS before. :-) We don't always catch it immediately, as we don't actively monitor ever project's source code (we have much better things to do with our time), but it usually gets noticed eventually.
Best thing to do is inquire about an exception. If the 3rd party code is not too large and/or is not being actively developed, it may be granted. I can't say. :-)
The whole module? Really?
The whole module? Really? Why not just the offending TPL?
Integrated
Because it's way too much work for our volunteer sysadmins to dig through the CVS history and prune out just certain files, some of which may have modifications and some not. :-)
TPL should reside within the project directory tree
http://groups.drupal.org/node/14734#comment-51433
As long as the license is one that FSF allows for GPL there should not be a problem. There shouldn't be any reason for a sysadmin to delete a project using GPL copesetic TPL. For the sake of goodwill this policy needs to change.
IMO you can relicense BSD
IMO you can relicense BSD code under GPL, as Larry explained.
You can host 3rd party code as part of your theme or module, if:
1) it is relicensable as GPL (see above)
2) it would be too high a burden for a downloader to obtain the code otherwise.
2) is true for example if the user would need to modify the elsewhere downloaded code. If in doubt, ask me.
This may be a little off subject...
What about projects that aren't modules or themes? I'm creating a project that would be similar to drush's cvs download, but wouldn't install in a module directory, it would just be a very useful script. Since it doesn't fit in the CVS module or theme scheme, I would think it hard to put it in drupal's CVS. Also would it be able to have a project page? Just looking to clarify the ides being discussed.
Frank Carey
Twelve Grove Inc. Drupal Development
"Module"
I don't know that there is a structure for that right now, since they're so rare. I think the most common places for that right now would be to call it a module for CVS purposes and then note on the project page and/or readme file that it's just a script, or to just put it in your CVS sandbox. That's not a legal question, though, but one to take up with the infrastructure team in their issue queue.
What a great thread -
I've read a lot of licensing articles/posts/opinions/theses before but never one that helped me much as a Drupal developer really. Based on what Killes said I believe that it would be ok for Ber to add the BSD code to his project...which incidentally happens to be exactly the same code I want to add to my project. (So Ber, there is another project that uses yahoo grids which is not defunct! [which is not to say that there isn't need/room for both] ;-)
Hm.
In the interest of crossposting_due_diligence - here's a recent comment by Bert saying no.
So as a Drupal developer who doesn't want to make a misstep, I wonder which opinion prevails...
Copyright law vs. CVS policy
Copyright law says that relicensing "permissive" licenses (BSD, MIT, etc.) under the GPL is OK.
Drupal's CVS policy says that we do not allow anything in CVS that is not released under the GPL. That's entirely our right to decide. We also do not allow 3rd party code in CVS, except under special circumstances (usually where significant modifications to the original code are necessary for it to be useful) and when it can be relicensed under the GPL (so that everything coming out of CVS is under the GPL).
Those two statements are not at all contradictory, but address two different (but related) things.
Make sense now?
I think so
Hi Larry,
Just to make sure that I really do understand, I'm going to try and restate what the same thing I think you're saying (apologies ahead of time if this this seems pedantically redundant):
1. Software/code that one cannot be re-licensed under the GPL cannot be included in the Drupal.org repository (unless there's a *very* special exception made for the code/project, as determined on a case by case basis).
2. Software/code which is able to be re-licensed, (e.g., MIT, BSD) can be re-licensed, and thus can be included in the Drupal.org repository since it will then be coming out as GPL.
Number two above, also seems to matches Sepeck's opinion about the matter when asked about including the BSD-licensed YUI library a while ago. (which I just found tonight while googling around)
Thank you for taking the time to help answer these questions, btw. :-)
No
Um, no, that's not the case at all. :-)
1) Software that cannot be relicensed under the GPL may not be included in Drupal's CVS. Period. Ever. There are no exceptions.
2) Software that cannot be relicensed under the GPL is not safe to integrate into a Drupal module, period, regardless of whether or not it is in Drupal's CVS repository.
3) Software that can be relicensed under the GPL may be included in Drupal's CVS repository if and only if an exception is made for it by the infrastructure team. Generally such exceptions are granted only if the code needs to be heavily modified in order to work in the first place. In that case, the code as it comes back out of CVS is under the GPL.
Thanks, Crell
I am bookmarking this response, because I think it settles once and for all any doubts I might have ever had about licensing as it relates to the Drupal.org repository. I have put my BSD file into code.google.com as a make-the-best-of-it compromise. :-)
2) Software that cannot be
headdesk
You mean only if the module is going to be distributed, right? Because I don't see how it's anybody's business if I write a Drupal module to integrate with FascistSoft's Capitalist Pig 2009 (Incredibly Closed Source Edition) for my own use.
The Boise Drupal Guy!
Yes
Yes, you're right on that point. The GPL only applies on distribution. However, distribution is really easy to do, as it's simply the nature of software and contract law, so if you want to bridge to Capitalist Pig 2009 in PHP space be very very careful about who you give the code to. :-)