What is distribution?

Posted by daniil_k on May 11, 2011 at 9:20am

Hello,

If I build a drupal based web site, create some custom modules, all under GPL.
Deploy it on server (hardware), and after that started to sell that server(hardware) to the user. User can access it only over browser.

Do the customers have rights to ask me for source code that runs on that server?

Best Regards

Comments

Yes

Posted by grendzy on May 11, 2011 at 4:43pm

Yes. Any device you sell must be accompanied by source code, or a "written offer" to provide it. Lots of companies have gotten in hot water for failing to meet this requirement.

Thank you for your

Posted by daniil_k on May 12, 2011 at 12:53am

Thank you for your answer.

What if I rent the device? I mean, If I rent a devices, the customer's house just place for device, he is not the device owner, so he can't request the code, i.e. the same way the users visiting the site can't request the code running on my server. In renting case the device (server) is my just located in a user's house.

Regards,
Daniil

That won't work either. You

Posted by filkertus on May 12, 2011 at 2:38am

That won't work either. You can sell a distribution for $1 or $1 million but you have to provide the source code. No matter how you try to disguise this transaction it will run afoul of the GPL. You should think of a different model.

Philip C. Curtis
phil@pcurtislaw.com
http://www.pcurtislaw.com

I think I wrong express my

Posted by daniil_k on May 12, 2011 at 3:02am

I think I wrong express my idea. Actually I don't try to cheat :)

In a FAQ says that if users visiting my site that runs on my server located in my building so I don't have to provide source code to users just visiting that site. Am I right?
So here is the question of property, if I developer the owner of the server and site I can not to share the source to the visitors.

So in a case of renting; An end user is not the owner of the server, he just visit web site on a server located in his own house.

The same as in a real world, if I rent a car I don't have the right to modify that car because that car isn't mine.

I hope you understand me now ;-)

Didn't mean to call you a

Posted by filkertus on May 12, 2011 at 4:24pm

Didn't mean to call you a cheater. I was just giving you my frank assessment of the situation. You don't have to provide the source code to users visiting the site. I don't think that your analogy of renting is a good one. If you rent a house you have the right to have visitors come to the home but you can't grant them a right of possession or anything else. You just can't convey a work covered under the GPL without providing the code.

Philip C. Curtis
phil@pcurtislaw.com
http://www.pcurtislaw.com

definitions

Posted by grendzy on May 12, 2011 at 4:59pm

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html offers this definition:

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

It's pretty clear that renting is still conveyance.

No, it isn't. Because user

Posted by daniil_k on May 13, 2011 at 12:21am

No, it isn't.

Because user doesn't receive the copy. I think that "receiving the copy" doesn't mean physical location of the server that run drupal.
I think "receiving the copy" means that someone gives the property rights to another. Using Services user doesn't receive such rights.

In a case of renting we just physically locate the server in the user's house and sell him the service. For the user point it doesn't matter where the server is, virtually he may don't even know where the server is, in his basement or in a Tokyo.

Else I presume that any software under GPL could be requested for source code because in that case source under GPL virtually becomes the property of the community. And the user has right to request the drupal code running on any servers. And the host provider on who's servers drupal is running has right to request the code.

I see what you are saying and

Posted by filkertus on May 13, 2011 at 3:33pm

I see what you are saying and I think the license could be clearer on this point. However, I think there are a few reasons that this is not a correct interpretation:

Your interpretation of "receiving a copy" is too narrow; and
Regardless of the interpretation of "receiving a copy" or "conveyance" you have no rights to use the covered works in any manner other than expressly allowed under the GNU GPL. Thus, if I were arguing this point against you I would say to the extent that this proposed transaction is not a "conveyance" its still prohibited under the license because the right is not expressly granted and thereby reserved.
Perhaps most importantly, the last paragraph of section 2 provides that "Sublicensing is not allowed." You define your proposed transaction as "renting". This could just be a language issue or just the misapplication of a legal principle. Rent or lease transactions and the body of law that applies to these transactions only apply to real or personal property transactions. Intellectual property such as copyrights are licensed and not "rented" or "leased". The concepts and the transactions are similar but the law which governs these two different types of property is different. The transaction you propose would likely be construed as a sublicensing transaction which is expressly prohibited.

I appreciate your careful analysis of this issue but with all due respect I think your position is fundamentally flawed. If this type of transaction were allowable under the GNU GPL it would be entirely worthless as all anyone would have to do to avoid having to share the code of any modified works would be to put it on a server and then "rent" the server to the end user. It simply won't work. If you still don't agree I would encourage you to retain an attorney who specializes in GPL issues and get a formal opinion on this before you sink a lot of time and money into this and potentially expose yourself to civil liability for copyright infringement. They are not a lot of attorneys out there who specialize in this field but I've found a few and could gladly refer you to one if you decide you'd like a formal opinion on this. Just shoot me an email and I'll send you a few names.

Philip C. Curtis
phil@pcurtislaw.com
http://www.pcurtislaw.com

I think I started annoing

Posted by daniil_k on May 13, 2011 at 4:22pm

I think I started annoing :)

I see you understand the law much more than me and I actually can't agree or disagree with you or argue. I just trust you that my position is flawed.

I come to that position from Drupal FAQ

Do I have to give the code for my web site to anyone who visits it?
No. The GPL does not consider viewing a web site to count as "distributing", so you are not required to share the code running on your server.

The keyword for me here is "YOUR SERVER". GPL doens't define who's server is. I just say to user, this server is mine, let it locates in you house for a while.

For me then The statement from FAQ isn't true.

Can you explain me the that Statement?

Thanks for your advice for GPL lawer. I think I don't need them because I am just do it for myself interest not for busienss

Best,
Regards

GNU GPL Compliant Business Models

Posted by filkertus on May 12, 2011 at 6:38pm

I've just started getting involved in this group and discussions about GNU GPL licensing issues. I've noticed a lot of comments already from people who are interested in new business models using the Drupal platform but most of them seem to clearly run afoul of the GPL. I really would hate to see a trend of people trying to devise ways to circumvent or find loopholes in the GPL. While I understand the motivation and desire to generate income from one's efforts I think that this sort of behavior and trend will have a strong negative impact on the Drupal community as a whole. I am a lawyer by education and profession. The U.S. legal system (and most lawyers) is such a different world from the Drupal community. The legal system and lawyers are adversarial and by nature not collaborative. As a result, the system is horrible inefficient and in many respects does not serve us well. When I was turned on to Drupal about 4 years ago I was amazed to see how well organized, cooperative and productive the Drupal community was. It still amazes me and frankly its refreshing and inspiring to see such a large group of people achieve such success through cooperation and collaboration which is not primarily driven by self interest. I think that a movement away from this would be a big mistake and highly detrimental to the group at large.

I completely understand the desire for community members and others to make money but I am confident there are myriad models for doing so that are within the letter and spirit of the GNU GPL and the overall beliefs and common values of the Drupal community and open source movement at large. Perhaps there is already something established on this site or elsewhere in the Drupal community for community members and others to collaborate, brain storm and discuss new ideas for making money on Drupal works and distributions that are within the letter and spirit of the GPL and consistent with the values of this community. However, if there isn't I would suggest we start something and I would gladly participate.

Philip C. Curtis
phil@pcurtislaw.com
http://www.pcurtislaw.com

Completely agree

Posted by boris mann on May 12, 2011 at 11:11pm

Many of the posts we get in the legal group are actually people looking for loopholes.

The BraveNewCode terms and conditions are a great model to look at for "paid" plugins: http://www.bravenewcode.com/general/terms/

I actually doesn't look for

Posted by daniil_k on May 13, 2011 at 12:28am

I actually doesn't look for loopholes, I just don't understand.

But anyway I think looking for loopholes is useful any way.

If people were honest and fair we wouldn't need any licence.

Clarification required on the Drupal GNU GPL

Posted by oceans15 on October 5, 2011 at 1:30am

I am new to the GNU GPL licensing model and I just wish to clarify the position before making any decision on moving forward with the project I have in mind.

Though I've read through the GNU GPL I'm not entirely clear on my position.

I'm considering developing a web based service based around Drupal in which I will have developed modules/plugins and a user interface specifically designed to facilitate the services which will be provided.

The service will be an online membership site where members pay a monthly subscription to access the services provided from within the membership site itself.

The services provided from within the membership site will include the uploading of the members own images which will be stored on a server. The member will then be able to for example manipulate the images from within the site using tools provided from within the membership area. The manipulation will essentially be achieved through API calls to another piece of software which is not part of Drupal.

The member can then either download the manipulated images for uploading and publishing on his own webs site, or he may choose to leave the images on my server and publish them on his website by embedding a small system generated code snippet on his website.

There will be NO distribution of any part of the Drupal code and there will be NO distribution of any part of my own code (aside from the system generated code snippet mentioned above).

Drupal will essentially be used as a wrapper to facilitate access to the services provided from within the membership site.

My question is, under the GNU GPL for Drupal will I be obliged to provide my website members with the code that I have had developed and which is running on my own website?

Any assistance or advice would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Brad

in the GNU FAQ

Posted by grendzy on October 5, 2011 at 3:04am

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods

Thank you. I find this all so

Posted by oceans15 on October 5, 2011 at 12:25pm

Thank you.

I find this all so very confusing.

I also want to point out that the reason for me raising this issue is that I do not wish to become foul of the GNU License.

Below is an extract taken from the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE website found here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html

The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public 
access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public.

This seems to suggest my application would not require release of my work. The first part of the following FAQ also appears to support this (not that I will be modifying Drupal, I will not, I will simply be having plugins developed using the Drupal API):

Q: A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL
say they must release their modified sources?
A: The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to
others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does
not have to release the modified sources.

Which seems to be fine, but then the answer goes on to say:

   It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, 
   without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine 
   for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the
   source code in that special case. ....

So we appear to have contradictory statements around this subject which makes it very difficult (at least for me so far) to establish the correct position.

The AGPL and the GPL are

Posted by grendzy on October 5, 2011 at 3:57pm

The AGPL and the GPL are different licenses. Drupal does not use the AGPL. You do not have to release modified GPL sources that remain on your server.

Re: GPL

Posted by oceans15 on October 5, 2011 at 4:55pm

Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.

Brad

Comments

Yes

Thank you for your

That won't work either. You

I think I wrong express my

Didn't mean to call you a

definitions

No, it isn't. Because user

I see what you are saying and

I think I started annoing

GNU GPL Compliant Business Models

Completely agree

I actually doesn't look for

Clarification required on the Drupal GNU GPL

in the GNU FAQ

Thank you. I find this all so

The AGPL and the GPL are

Re: GPL

Legal

Group organizers

New groups

Group notifications