A Drupal user is selling downloads of a module I wrote for $49

Posted by rj on December 23, 2011 at 3:22pm

The module is uc_authorizenet_multi (sandboxed) and is being sold here by Drupal user crossmedia.

Does this violate GPLv2? 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."

I understand we are allowed to sell Drupal modules but the issue of re-selling something someone else wrote, and seemingly taking credit for it, seems shady.

Comments

Semantics?

Posted by jason.fisher on December 23, 2011 at 5:29pm

They could claim that they are charging for the download/installation/support of the module? If they are offering a service around that module's integration, then I believe they may be doing nothing illegal? Ethics may be another matter..

IANAL :)

Does it suck, yes. Is it not

Posted by redndahead on December 23, 2011 at 6:20pm

Does it suck, yes. Is it not allowed, no. As long as the user gives the un-obfuscated code to the purchaser when they request it, it is perfectly allowed. Now the user who buys it unfortunately gets duped in that they could have downloaded it for free. But best we as a community can do is spread the word that this is happening and request people don't work with the individual.

no GPL violation

Posted by valthebald on December 23, 2011 at 6:24pm

If package is distributed in the form of the source code, contains all necessary references to all work it's derived from, and is licensed under GPL, there is no license violation.
Ethics, indeed, is completely another issue

Interesting

Posted by mcfilms on December 24, 2011 at 7:02am

So wait, are you telling me that when they claim, "Our custom made multi authorize. net module..." there is no violation of the GPL license? What about copyright? Does RJ still own the original copyright? Could he send a cease and desist notice for copyright violation?

I am not caliming but charging for support, configuration

Posted by crossmedia on December 24, 2011 at 11:54am

Hi,

1- I would like to notify that i am charging for support, configuration and installation of this module and for your kind information this is not violation of any copyrights law.

2- I have the better one codded myself, if someone is interested please let me know i will send you the complete code and you may compare it with the one already exists.

3- Charging to your clients for any open source development, customization, integration, installation and configuration is not a violation of any copyright/GPL.

4- If this is the case then all open source including drupal, joomla, wordpress they should ban any customization and chages in their code.

Please let me know if i am wrong anywhere and still if its not acceptable for World Wide Web Community i will remove every thing.

@crossmedia: Points 3 and 4

Posted by valthebald on December 24, 2011 at 1:36pm

@crossmedia: Points 3 and 4 are obviously true, but point 2 is wrong.
If you base your work on other piece of code, which is distributed under GPL, you have to distribute your code also under GPL. Which, in turn, means you MUST allow free, unconditional access to the source code.
Only in that case, you invalidate your point 1 (that you charge for support, not module code itself).
This is the way GPL works

"Free unconditional access"

Posted by redndahead on December 24, 2011 at 5:06pm

"Free unconditional access" is true only to the people you distribute the software to.

i never said or claim the ownership of this module

Posted by crossmedia on December 24, 2011 at 1:52pm

1- But if you look into my website i never said or claim the ownership of this module, infact i am saying i will configure, customize, install and provide support of this module for any person or company.

2- I am not sellig the code but available services on this module, If someone is requesting me to customize this module as per their requirements, should i do it or not?

3- Could you please advise me how i can make it legal, actually i wana provide support, installation, configuration and customization for this module, what words should i remove and add into my website?

1) Your website looked like

Posted by redndahead on December 24, 2011 at 5:04pm

1) Your website looked like you were selling this module as you created it. But I see it's corrected.
2) That is perfectly fine
3) I think the wording you have now should be correct.

Good Steps

Posted by mcfilms on December 24, 2011 at 2:43pm

I see you have already changed the claim, "Our custom made multi authorize. net module..." and now offer support, configuration and installation of this module. To me, this is a great first step.

I wonder if you'd consider sharing some of your enhancements with the developer? Oftentimes providing installation support for a module is something the developer doesn't want to have to do. He may be able to offload support requests to you. This misunderstanding could be a win-win scenario for all involved.

My suggestions

Posted by valthebald on December 24, 2011 at 4:30pm

To meet GPL, you have to provide direct download link of the module (either on your site or link to ftp.drupal.org). From the legal perspective, that's the only needed action.
As @mcfilms suggested in the previous comment, you can contact module author and suggest offload support requests to you. I really believe both sides can benefit from this decision.
You have full right to modify, add and improve GPL-licensed code of someone else, as far as you distribute your code under GPL. The license does not require you to work for free, neither to spare your income with original code authors.

1) This is a misconception.

Posted by redndahead on December 24, 2011 at 5:00pm

1) This is a misconception. There is no requirement that there be a download link anywhere. The only person that he/she is required to give the source code to is the person they distribute the software to. In this case it would be the purchaser and in that case it's only if they request the source code.

2) I agree with

3) Yep that's true too.

Right

Posted by valthebald on December 24, 2011 at 8:05pm

After re-reading GPL once again - right, there is no such requirement (always useful to read the origin:)

@crossmedia

Posted by rj on December 27, 2011 at 12:50am

Thank you for changing the verbiage. I am more than willing to incorporate your changes if you submit a patch in the issue queue. I am incorporating the changes recommended by others and will update the module in a day or so, feel free to submit a patch then. Thanks for the feedback everyone. :)

R.J. Townsend