http://groups.drupal.org/legal Discussion of legal matters surrounding Drupal en http://groups.drupal.org/node/14010 <p>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<br /> <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fed&amp;navby=title&amp;v1=katzer" title="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fed&amp;navby=title&amp;v1=katzer">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fed&amp;navby=title&amp;v...</a><br /> This is not a broadly worded decision but the outcome points in the right direction, toward enforceability of an open source license.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/14010#comments Legal Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:04:27 +0000 Drupal Newbie 14010 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/13734 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>I have found a few forum topics about the status of the Druplicon, but they just conclude that it is covered by the GPL. That doesn't answer the question &mdash; this is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue, and the GPL says nothing about that.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/13734#comments Druplicon; trademark; GPL Legal Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:19:39 +0000 jhsachs@drupal.org 13734 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/13664 <p>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?</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/13664#comments affero agpl Legal Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:07:01 +0000 steve dondley@drupal.org 13664 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/13575 <p>In the readme file for this module it says you have to download <a href="http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player" title="http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player">http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player</a></p> <p>However, that is a non-gpl item? Is this allowed?</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/13575#comments Legal Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:34:04 +0000 drupalnuts@drupal.org 13575 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/13524 <p>What are the restrictions, if any, on applications that interface with Drupal via XMLRPC?</p> <p>To be more specific, I have three parts to a large project I'm working on. One part is a Drupal module - I understand that this has to be GPL, but since I'm not required to distribute it that's not a problem. The second part is an application that will be running on the server and making XMLRPC calls to Drupal to query user/node/whatever information from the site. The third part is any one of a number of desktop applications that will be designed to connect to the server over a custom communication protocol, namely a game engine I'm in the process of developing. This desktop application must be closed source. Since the only interface into Drupal from these closed source applications is through XMLRPC, is this situation allowed, and if so can it be clarified <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q10">here</a>? The current wording (specifically 'that leaves the 3rd party system unaffected') makes this situation seem ambiguous.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/13524#comments Legal Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:33:21 +0000 t0tAl_mElTd0wN 13524 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/13348 <p>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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_provider">Application Service Provider</a>. If I pursue this endeavor I will likely end up using the Drupal core, some contributed modules, and several custom modules.</p> <p><strong>Does the GLP License require me to make available any of my custom modules, configurations or patches made to Drupal?</strong></p> <p>It seems like <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq">question #11</a> of the FAQ kind of addresses this issue and that it does not require me to make the code available. But I wanted to be clear.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/13348#comments Application Service Provider ASP licensing Aegir hosting system Legal Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:24:32 +0000 strayhand@drupal.org 13348 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/13322 <p>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:</p> <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>That sounds reasonable. But is it permissible? The paragraph 0 of GPL version 2 start with following sentence:</p> <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>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?</p> <p>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 <em>out</em> of Drupal CVS.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/13322#comments Legal Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:17:49 +0000 TBarregren 13322 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12818 <p><i>I am not a lawyer</i>. <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q10">Item #10 of the licensing FAQ</a> asks a particular question (my emphasis throughout):</p> <blockquote><p>10: Can I <b>write</b> a "bridge module" to interface between Drupal and another system or library?</p></blockquote> <p>but then goes on to answer a slightly different one (with specific regard to incompatible licences):</p> <blockquote><p>It is not possible to <b>distribute</b> a module that integrates a non-GPL compatible library with Drupal, because it would be a derivative work of both Drupal and that other library and would therefore violate either the GPL or the license of the other library.</p></blockquote> <p>Writing and distributing, with regard to GPL compliance, are two potentially different legal acts. In fact, <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q8">item #8</a> explicitly disassociates them:</p> <blockquote><p>You are under no obligation to distribute the code to anyone else.</p></blockquote> <p>So: can one legally write bridging code to a non-GPL library, so long as it is never distributed?</p> <p>(Of course, you can write whatever you like on your own computer, and cross your fingers it never gets discovered. But I'm talking theory rather than practice; some companies are more litigation-fearful than others; and anyway, who knows <a href="http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html">what might be subpoenaed</a>?)</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12818#comments bridge GPL licensing module Legal Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:04:34 +0000 jp.stacey@drupal.org 12818 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12722 <p>Created this thread to discuss:</p> <p><a href="http://groups.drupal.org/node/12631" title="http://groups.drupal.org/node/12631">http://groups.drupal.org/node/12631</a></p> <p>Why won't anyone else sign? What is missing / confusing / distasteful about it?</p> <p>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.)</p> <p>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" ?</p> <p>Please, no discussion here of the value / freeness / legal standing of the GPL. Drupal is licensed under the GPL, and any program that includes GPL code must be licensed under the GPL. (Yes, I have engaged in such discussions elsewhere. I'm done with that. For now.)</p> <p><b>This is not about the GPL. This is about the ambiguous legal definition of alleged 'derivative works' which contain no GPL code. </b></p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12722#comments Legal Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:14:48 +0000 matt2000@drupal.org 12722 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12667 <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12667#comments legal gpl licensing Legal Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:35:13 +0000 matt2000@drupal.org 12667 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12662 <p>Hi All,</p> <p>I've been looking into some differences between Drupal/GPL and CiviCRM/AGPL and wanted register my thoughts for consideration and/or further clarification.</p> <p>As <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q11">FAQ #11</a> points out:</p> <blockquote><p> ...some 3rd party systems that integrate with Drupal, such as CiviCRM, are released under the Affero General Public License (AGPL) version 3. The AGPL does require that visitors to the site be given a copy of the server-side code if they request it. If you install such a system with Drupal, then the entire work is considered under the AGPL, and must be made available. </p></blockquote> <p>AGPL adds the 2(d) clause to the GPL which (generally) says the following: If you started with some AGPL software that included a "download a copy of the source" link/button (which CiviCRM does), then you must keep that download facility intact. Further, that download facility must offer not only the original code you received, but the code base as a whole as it's being used, including any other derivative works, as defined by the rest of the (A)GPL.</p> <p>So, by my reading of the AGPL, we'd have to include a "download source code" facility on every Drupal page as well that would include the Drupal code base as well as any contrib or custom modules you have written if CiviCRM is running in that same memory space and you're using civicrm.module.</p> <p>CiviCRM, however, defines derivative work as actually having changed the CiviCRM code. They claim that accessing the CiviCRM app via its API's are sufficient to keep drupal and modules immunized against being considered derivatives of CiviCRM and subject to AGPL (<a href="http://civicrm.org/node/166">http://civicrm.org/node/166</a>, points 4 and 5). Is this just an (mis- ?) interpretation of the AGPL by the folks at CiviCRM? Am I ignorant in my reading of GPL and AGPL?</p> <p>Previously, the original Affero GPL and GPL were not compatible. Now, however, GNU AGPLv3 and GPLv3 are [1].</p> <ul> <li>Drupal is GPL v2 or v3 [2]</li> <li>CiviCRM 1.x is Affero GPL</li> <li>CiviCRM 2.x is GNU AGPLv3 [3]</li> </ul> <p>So, CiviCRM 2.x and Drupal are at least license compatible.</p> <p>My questions for consideration here are:</p> <ol> <li>Is there a professional opinion available on the license status of a site that uses Drupal and CiviCRM 2.x? </li> <li>Does merely using CiviCRM via it's API's in a Drupal installation subject that Drupal installation and all of it's modules to be download on demand? </li> <li>If so, does the download link have to appear in the derivative works (Drupal pages), or must it only include the derivative projects' code when accessed via the orginal links in the CiviCRM footers?</li> </ol> <p>Thanks All,<br /> Seth</p> <p>[1] <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SeparateAffero" title="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SeparateAffero">http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SeparateAffero</a><br /> [2] <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q1" title="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q1">http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q1</a><br /> [3] <a href="http://civicrm.org/licensing" title="http://civicrm.org/licensing">http://civicrm.org/licensing</a></p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12662#comments GPL AGPL Affero CiviCRM Legal Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:02:46 +0000 sethfreach 12662 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12659 <p><a href="http://drupal.org/project/zend_feed" title="http://drupal.org/project/zend_feed">http://drupal.org/project/zend_feed</a></p> <p>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.</p> <p>The way I understand this is:</p> <ol> <li> <p>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</p> </li> <li> <p>this does not apply if the code runs on the client side, javascript,css,etc</p> </li> <li> <p>web services are exempt</p> </li> <li> <p>what if a web service provides php code? While insecure, what would be the legal side on this.</p> </li> </ol> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12659#comments legal gpl Legal Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:06:29 +0000 drupalnut 12659 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12648 <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12648#comments legal gpl Contributed Module Status Legal Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:31:09 +0000 matt2000@drupal.org 12648 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12646 <p><a href="http://drupal.org/project/wysiwygpro" title="http://drupal.org/project/wysiwygpro">http://drupal.org/project/wysiwygpro</a></p> <p>Is something like that allowed:<br /> A) on drupal's CVS<br /> B) at all?</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12646#comments GPL licensing Legal Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:12:56 +0000 drupalnut 12646 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12640 <p>The title says it all, is the licence allowing us to completely remove any link back to Drupal.org ?</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12640#comments Legal Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:06:10 +0000 alliax@drupal.org 12640 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12631 <p>Because of ambiguities and regional differences in the interpretation of "derivative works" as referenced in the GPL, any Drupal contributor who wishes to do so is encouraged to add your digital signature, as a comment, beneath the following statement to affirm your agreement.</p> <p>If a lawyer would like to suggest a better form or improved language for this manifesto, comments are encouraged. (<a href="http://groups.drupal.org/node/12722">A new discussion has been formed here</a> to keep this page uncluttered.)</p> <p>If this page is moved or converted to another form, I will make my best effort to notify all signers where possible.</p> <p>If you are unclear about the meaning of this statement, and the rights you may be giving up by agreeing to it, you should consult a lawyer.</p> <p><hr /></p> <p>[ Updated 2008-06-21 22:28 ]</p> <p>We, the undersigned Contributors, hereby agree that we shall not engage or attempt to engage in Aggressive Action, in regards to an actual or perceived 'Derivative Work', against any person who creates a work which may be considered, in any jurisdiction, a 'Derivative Work' based upon our Publicly Available Contributions to Drupal. A "Publicly Available Contribution to Drupal", is any work distributed on the Internet or by any other public medium, under any license, which is NOT explicitly identified as proprietary, and which IS explicitly identified as a theme, module, patch, documentation, enhancement, or tool for use with a Drupal-based system. "Aggressive Action" is defined as the filing of a lawsuit against another party, excepting a counter-suit if the party has previously filed suit against the Contributor, or any other action which would prevent any third party from using, modifying, distributing, or profiting from a Publicly Available Contribution. This statement does not supersede or conflict with the GPL; it seeks only to clarify our understanding of it's definition of "Derivative Works" as applied to Drupal contributions.</p> <p>Our agreement is affirmed by the placing of our Digital Signatures below, which is believed by the undersigned to be legally binding in the United States, under the laws regarding Digital Signatures.</p> <p>Signed:</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12631#comments gpl legal licensing Legal Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:06:30 +0000 matt2000@drupal.org 12631 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/12624 <p>What is the basis for the claim of <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7" title="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7">http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7</a> ?</p> <p>Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.</p> <p>Primary fact: Whether or not something is a 'derivative work' is defined by copyright law, not by the license.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>See, for a example, <a href="http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm" title="http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm">http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm</a> for a lawyer's opinion which counters the claims of the Licensing FAQ.</p> <p>What are other's opinions on this? I've seen many discussions centered around the GPL's FAQs, but what matters is the text of the GPL itself. The only text that speaks to derivative works is:<br /> "a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law" . I defend my 'Primary fact' with this statement.</p> <p>Since 'copyright law' is interpreted via court rulings, one question that might bring the issue to a point: Which court ruling can be identified to support the assertion that software modules are derivative works?</p> <p>Note that I am a proponent of Free Software, and support the decision to require all code in the official repository to be GPL. But I also support individual freedom of developers to release their work under the license of their choice. I think the development of proprietary modules would be a benefit to Drupal, not a harm. I think most developers who do so now would continue to choose to release their work under an OSL. But I also think it would be beneficial to allow alternatives.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/12624#comments licensing gpl Legal Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:26:33 +0000 matt2000@drupal.org 12624 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/10596 <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License</a> says that GFDL is the counterpart for documentation to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl</a>, so I'm wondering if they are compatible, and if documentation published under GFDL may be packaged with modules in the Drupal.org repository?</p> <p>Thanks,<br /> Aaron Winborn<br /> <a href="http://aaronwinborn.com/" title="http://aaronwinborn.com/">http://aaronwinborn.com/</a></p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/10596#comments Beginner Documentation Drupal for Good Legal Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:57:21 +0000 aaron 10596 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/10570 <p><a href="http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/07/red-hat-asks-federal-court-to-limit-patents-on-software/" title="http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/07/red-hat-asks-federal-court-to-limit-patents-on-software/">http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/07/red-hat-asks-federal-court-to-lim...</a></p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/10570#comments Legal Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:16:56 +0000 Amazon 10570 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/10159 <p>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.</p> <p><a href="http://www.fossology.org/" title="http://www.fossology.org/">http://www.fossology.org/</a></p> <p>This may be a service we want to run on cvs.drupal.org to ensure license integrity.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/10159#comments Legal Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:22:20 +0000 Amazon 10159 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/9988 <p>This wiki page is a place for comments and links that are helpful for making Drupal sites compliant with the US <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act" title="Child Online Protection Act">COPA</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act" title="Children&#039;s Online Privacy Protection Act">COPPA</a> laws. Please add your reviews of contributed modules and links to site recipes.</p> <p><strong>User registration</strong></p> <p>In <a href="http://www.funnymonkey.com/site-for-young-readers">A Blueprint For a Site For Young Readers</a>, <a href="/user/178">Bill Fitzerald</a> wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>COPPA: this requires some custom development. We actually have some COPPA code that we worked on a while back that we need to dust off, clean up, and release. At its most basic, we need to branch the registration process, with all users under 13 directed to get their parent, or (alternately) to enter their parent's email address. The specifics would need to be vetted with legal counsel.</p></blockquote> <p>Not long afterwards, Jeff Graham contributed a <a href="http://drupal.org/project/coppa">COPPA module</a>.</p> <p><strong>Deleting accounts</strong></p> <p>For parents to be able to delete accounts, there are the <a href="http://drupal.org/project/user_cancellation">User Cancellation</a> and <a href="http://drupal.org/project/user_delete">User Delete</a> modules. More information about the issue of users deleting their own accounts can be found at <a href="http://drupal.org/node/8" title="http://drupal.org/node/8">http://drupal.org/node/8</a></p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> Legal Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:44:39 +0000 christefano 9988 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/8989 <p>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 <a href="http://drupal.org/node/221876">Clarify Copyright status of content on Drupal.org's website</a>.</p> <p>Thanks,<br /> Aaron Winborn</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> http://groups.drupal.org/node/8989#comments copyright drupal.org TOS Legal Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:02:17 +0000 aaron 8989 at http://groups.drupal.org http://groups.drupal.org/node/6318 <p>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.</p> <p>Important links:<br /> <a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/" title="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/">http://www.softwarefreedom.org/</a></p> <h2>Drupal.org specific issues</h2> <h3>Question 1: A Drupal module is written that interfaces with Drupal (which is under the GPL) via PHP function calls, and interfaces with a 3rd party non-GPL system via PHP function calls. It does not include the 3rd party system in its distribution, but the 3rd party system is required for some or all functionality. Is it legal to distribute this module? --Crell and chx</h3> <p>jbatson: What does "...legal to distribute this module?" mean? Are you asking whether the Drupal module can be distributed in some way that is non-open-source (e.g. "compiled" PHP) only, and charge money for the software? Or are you asking whether the non-GPL 3rd-party software that is "distributed" (presumably in tandem with the Drupal module) becomes "entangled" by the Drupal GPL copyleft (e.g. must that 3rd-party PHP software be supplied as open source)? Or.... What??? (I actually am a licensed lawyer, though I don't practice. So I will try to help here by helping articulate the questions well.)</p> <p>FYI, IMHO, I think the key question here will be: Does the 3rd-party non-GPL system execute its code in the same instance of the PHP interpreter as Drupal? GPL v2 was written to address such questions by applying a test that is the Unix-equivalent of fork/exec. If code Z runs in the same address space as code A, and code A is the code that "started the process," and code A is open source, code Z is covered by copyleft. If, on the other hand, code A did a fork/exec to create a new process with a new address space, code Z is not covered by copyleft.</p> <p>So In the case of the question above, if the 3rd-party non-GPL system is being accessed by Drupal using PHP function calls, and these PHP function calls are being executed by the same instance of the PHP interpreter (that is running Drupal), and the logic of the code is being executed here (vs. in some application that has been forked/exec'd), I think there is a significant case to be made that the 3rd-party code is covered by the GPL copyleft, and must be open source. This is, IMHO, though.</p> <p>I say these things NOT because they're intended to be a controlling interpretation; but to guide how the question can be re-stated in order to get an answer that is workable.</p> <h3>Question 2: A Drupal module is written that interfaces with Drupal (which is under the GPL) via PHP function calls, and interfaces with a 3rd party non-GPL system via some out-of-process mechanism (XML-RPC, SOAP, fopen(), HTTP/REST, etc.). It does not include the 3rd party system in its distribution, but the 3rd party system is required for some or all functionality. Is it legal to distribute this module? --Crell and chx</h3> <p>jbatson: IMHO, using the (informal) "same address space" test, I think the 3rd-party non-GPL system is NOT covered by copyleft. This is going to be a slippery-slope area for the GPL/FSF. If the FSF begins to assert that web services that are on the other side of an HTTP interface are "part of the same application," and covered by the GPL, it will be a significant issue for the entire technology industry, not merely Drupal. Again, IMHO (read "not controlling.") (In this case, this comment should be subject to deletion, since this comment serves no purpose regarding improving the question....)</p> <p>pwolanin: as real-world examples, this group provides links to Drupal modules that does just this via SOAP (AFAIKT): <a href="http://groups.drupal.org/imis" title="http://groups.drupal.org/imis">http://groups.drupal.org/imis</a></p> <p>TimCullen: like jbatson, I'm licensed, but not practicing, and want to help make sure we ask good questions of the good folks at the SFLC. I second jbatson's concern here about creeping copyleft for v3. One wrinkle to add to the question is whether the status of the 3rd-party + Drupal module interaction is altered by whether the call to the external services is made at at every page load, or whether "going out and getting data" is periodic and cached, or even whether data acquisition was successful at all. The point I'm getting at is wouldn't the input from the 3rd party application be more on the order of a config/data file and not a joint process from the perspective whether this interaction forms a derivative work?</p> <h3>Question 3: 3rd parties may be distributing Drupal bridged/integrated with non-FOSS PHP packages (e.g. vbDrupal) or a simply distributing modules that makes such a bridge. If the answer to #2 is that such bridging does that violate the GPL, what is the appropriate action to take with respect to these 3rd parties? --pwolanin</h3> <p>Crell: Isn't that the same thing as question 1?<br /> pwolanin: partly, but this is focused on 3rd party distribution - rephrased to clarify.<br /> jbatson: I'm not sure even the rephrasing makes this question different.... Can you clarify (in comments) what makes it different?<br /> pwolanin: (note - questions have been re-ordered, I think). I took question #1 to be related to what policy d.o should have, while this question relates more to how we should deal with parties outside the d.o realm of control.<br /> TimCullen: As will all copyrights (in the US at least), the right to sue for a copyright and/or a license violation rests with the owner of the copyright. From a preliminary perusal of the files, it's not clear who, if anyone is asserting copyright over the code. (According to the association, "<a href="http://association.drupal.org/about/copyright">The copyright of both the Drupal software [...] belongs to all the original authors, though both are licensed under the GPL.</a>") That said, I'd amend the question to ask in addition, <i>who</i> would be the appropriate party(s) to take that action--could a single author with a copyrightable submission to a file being distributed be enough to commence legal action, or would we need everyone's assent? (see: section 5.3 <a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html">here</a> for a related discussion)</p> <h3>Question 4: Is Drupal licensed under GPL v2 or any GPL version? Drupal's about pages only mention GPL without specifying a version. Accompanying texts (and the source) mention nothing license wise -- there is a LICENSE.txt containing GPL v2. However, the original copyright holder has stated in 2006 that his intention was GPL v2. Drupal was originally released in 2001 and has since had hundreds of contributors.--chx</h3> <p>pwolanin: since there is no copyright notice, it's not even clear that the GPL has been effectively applied to Drupal at all. Certainly a plain reading of the GPL license strongly supports that assuming that Drupal is GPL licensed, it's currently licensed under any GPL version (1.0, 2.0, or 3.0). I see the option to use GPL 3.0 as nearly essential, since it means Drupal can "legally" be combined with GPL 3.0 or AGPL code (e.g. CiviCRM). see also: <a href="http://drupal.org/node/174226" title="http://drupal.org/node/174226">http://drupal.org/node/174226</a> and <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html" title="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html</a></p> <p>Crell: IF that is indeed the case, pwolanin, I'd suggest making Drupal explicitly GPLv2 or later, which gives us the most flexibility and compatibility. That IF, however, has yet to be answered.</p> <p>jbatson: There may be a thorny issue with code contributed at various points in time. However, I think the two controlling factors are these:</p> <ul> <li>When you sign up for CVS commit access, you have to click through an agreement saying "I will only commit code that is licensed under terms of the GNU public license, version 2". See <a href="http://drupal.org/cvs-account">http://drupal.org/cvs-account</a>.</li> <li>The LICENSE.txt in the top-level directory of a Drupal tarball will be considered controlling, and this is GPL v2.</li> </ul> <p>pwolanin: the GPL version 2 says that if the source does not specify a version, then it can be licensed under any GPL version. So, we have already been through the question of the version of the license being included, and I think that even though v2 is included, there is no indication (via a copyright statement) that we are restricted to <em>only</em> v2.</p> <h3>Quetion 5: What element of Themes are covered by the GPL's provisions? Themes consist of a set of php files that interact with Drupal and while that can and will be affected by the module decision above, themes are also comprised of graphics, css and the overall design itself. Is just the php elements or is the design covered under the GPL too. -sepeck</h3> <p>Crell: I think better phrasing here would be to state that a theme consists of some combination of in-process PHP, HTML, CSS, and graphics, then ask which would be covered by the GPL and which can be something else (e.g., CC).</p> <p>Killes: I believe this topic is covered by the GPL FAQ.</p> <p>Eaton: It's not answered in the GPL FAQ -- since CSS, JS, .info files, and so on are not in-process PHP, the FAQ is very much unclear. This may be something that is up to the Drupal community itself.</p> <h3>Question 6: I want to bundle a Flash component with Drupal (e.g. a rating widget, a calender widget or a map widget). Does the Flash binary have to be GPL? Do I need to include the Flash binary's "source code"?</h3> <p>killes: The answer of the second question follows from the answer for the first.</p> <p>jbatson: The same thing probably applies to Javascript supplied to a browser by a Drupal instance. IMHO, I think 3rd-party-added Flash/Javascript is NOT covered by the Drupal license; this code does NOT run in the code address space of Drupal; it runs in the browser's address space.</p> <p>TimCullen: I would add that it depends on the degree of interoperability--if the flash binary is making use of Drupal functions to retrieve and store data on the server, that might bring it within the ambit of the REST/SOAP discussion above.</p> <h3>Question 7: Does drupal.org (or all sites within this domain) need to post a notice regarding the copyright of contributed patches or code snippets in the issue queue, handbook, and forum? For example, CiviCRM has this: <a href="http://civicrm.org/licensing" title="http://civicrm.org/licensing">http://civicrm.org/licensing</a> . For drupal.org, the project module could display a notice, or there could even be a checkbox required when attaching to a follow-up (e.g. "I confirm that none of the attached code is proprietary, and I agree to license it under the GPL").</h3> <p>The handbook has a license on the /handbooks page and a block with the handbook license on all book pages. (Creative Commons License, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0.) -sepeck</p> <h3>Question 8: Is the Drupal core code and its modifications compliant to the conditions stipulated in the GPL v2? --earnie </h3> <h3>Question 9: Are the proprietors of Drupal.org (or any other distributors of drupal code) liable if one of the contributors has in some way contributed proprietary, un-licensable or code which they didn't have rights to? --earnie</h3> <p>TimCullen: If there is the possibility of liability attaching, in what jurisdictions would we be most vulnerable, and what can we do going forward to remedy the situation. To what degree must Drupal.org (or the Drupal Association) police the contributed code?</p> <p>matt2000: On a side note, assuming Tim's interpretation of the question, the Common Public License addresses this concern thoroughly. It is used by the OpenLaszlo project, and IBM. I don't know if this is considered compatible with the GPL. FYI, I revised the question per Tim, but preserved earnie's version in HTML comments.</p> <h3>Question 10: With the confusion about who owns the various copyrights to Drupal, does it make sense to begin building a list of copyright owners, both for past and future code submissions? If so, what are the best practices of other organizations? What data should be collected?</h3> <h3>Question 11: How can the Drupal Community prevent abusive behavior from individual copyright owners? For example, can a theme developer be assured that an individual Core contributor can not claim copyright interest in his theme? Is it possible to declare universally that Themes and Modules may not be considered by any contributor as "Derivative Works" simply by virtue of their usefulness in a Drupal-based system? -matt2000 </h3> <p>cf: <a href="http://groups.drupal.org/node/12624" title="http://groups.drupal.org/node/12624">http://groups.drupal.org/node/12624</a></p> <h3>Question 12: Drupal is GPLv2/3, CiviCRM 2.x is GNU AGPLv3. Drupal <a href="http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q11">FAQ #11</a> explicitly states that even installing these two together would bring Drupal (and, one would assume, all installed modules) under the umbrella of the AGPL. CiviCRM's <a href="http://civicrm.org/node/166">license FAQ</a> explicitly states that accessing CiviCRM via its API's (and not altering CiviCRM source code) is sufficient to keep Drupal a <i>"separate and independent program"</i>, and thus not be subject to the AGPL. Both opinions were prepared by/with council from the SFLC. Which is correct? --sethfreach</h3> <h2>Consulting issues</h2> <h3>Question 1: Does the mere act of writing a Drupal module (or theme, for the sake of argument) mean that that code is instantly virally GPL'd? Or is it the act of uploading it to Drupal's CVS server that GPLs it? <a href="http://jeff.viapositiva.net/archives/2006/02/drupal_and_the_gpl_as_i_understa.html Drupal as I understand it">This article</a> implies it's the former, but if that's the case, then why does D.o tell us that we can only upload GPL-licensed modules to CVS? This implies that it's possible to license a module otherwise… -- <a href="http://drupal.org/user/191212">Garrett Albright</a></h3> <p>matt2000: This is answered (poorly, IMO) by the FAQ #7, which claims that all Drupal modules ARE virally infected by the GPL, whether or not they are distributed via Drupal's CVS. You are correctly that d.o is inconsistent in its language, and wording in some places does imply that another option exists. I would very much like to see this resolved.</p> <div class="og_rss_groups"><a href="/legal">Legal</a></div> Legal Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:55:15 +0000 Crell@drupal.org 6318 at http://groups.drupal.org