Posted by dave reid on January 3, 2009 at 6:31pm
bertboerland recently found that someone has created a Drupal API iPhone app. In the iTunes Store, it is sold for $1.99 and says "Copyright 2008 Sehat Rosny." I'm pretty sure this is a big no-no since on api.drupal.org, it says specifically, "All source code and documentation on this site is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 and later. Drupal is a registered trademark of Dries Buytaert." I e-mailed Apple about the violation so hopefully it is removed. I like the idea, but it's just not done correctly. Note the author also has done the same for PHP and Apache documentation. I haven't looked into either of those to see if they are violations as well.
Comments
This actually seems like it
This actually seems like it could be a useful app... maybe it would be better to work with the developer and make sure the GPL license is included, rather than calling the apple cops?
Hard to believe you're correct...
I understand your sensitivity to people charging money for services within the open source community, but I find it very hard to believe that this violates the GPL in any way. Basically, if I am reading you correctly, you are claiming that any "viewer" of the api documentation must be GPL (which is essentially what this app seems to do). Well, lets roll out the lawsuit against Microsoft, since I'm pretty sure IE isn't GPL. While you're at it, why not sue apple themselves? I have to pay for my iPhone, and so if I view the apps from the browser (which I also pay for, though not directly) am I violating the GPL? Now I'm no lawyer, but I can't believe that the GPL extends to every technology it comes in contact with, which is basically what you are claiming.
How about instead of fretting about how a non-browser, non-open source, viewer of the api might violate the GPL (again, imho a highly dubious claim), you join us in building a Drupal iPhone api to allow all developers to easily connect Drupal sites to iPhone apps? Heck, we could even make an api viewer as the first test app! That seems to be a much less expensive, and much more reality based, approach to this.
In other words- the developer had a good idea, so why don't we take it and make it our own and... make it free?
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg
ZivTech: Illuminating Technology
Not about charging
The biggest misconception is that charging money for GPL is a problem. IT IS NOT. There is nothing in the GPL about charging money. And in fact, this isn't about GPL at all.
It's a trademark violation -- you can't use the word Drupal commercially without permission.
If we don't protect the trademark, then anyone could slap the label Drupal on any piece of code, which wouldn't be good for any of us.
And yes, I agree this is useful. I think if this were a free app, it wouldn't be a problem. Crell, would that be correct?
Trademarks don't care about
Trademarks don't care about free or not. If Dries issues a blanco checque permission for free use, then it is not a problem, if not then it is.
Regardless of the trademark it is a GPL issue. The docs are GPLed too (they are inside the source code). Hence they need to provide the source code together with the docs (or offer a way to download it). They do IMO not have to GPL the application.
However, they also infringe basic author's rights by claiming copyright for the whole thing (application + docs).
Hi Dave Reid
Hi Dave Reid and others,
I am the author of that Drupal API iPhone app. I create it for fun and for my personal use. Since none is available yet on iPhone and some of my friends want to use it and the only way to share it is to post it to Apple App Store.
Initially, I am testing the iPhone Store Market by charging the price and see how it goes. Since, now I know how the whole iPhone Store Market works, NOW, I just set the price to FREE and there is NO MORE FEE for it. It might take a while for the changes to take effect. (Probably about 3-4 days)
As far as the copyright things, it is dynamically set from one of the box which need to put author name. I just remove the copyright things from there. There is no more copyright name there now. :)
Also, if you guys want me to remove it feel free to let me know, I can remove it easily and don't ever use the word DRUPAL anymore. :)
Also this Drupal API documentation for iPhone app is very basic and is not a whole iPhone APP. The whole native iPhone app will have much more capabilities into it. Currently, I don't have time to create one yet for Drupal Community. So, I just put very basic iPhone app for my own use.
Feel free to let me know if you have more question.
Thank you,
Sehat
I just remove the Drupal API from the app store
I think to make it easier for right now, I just remove Drupal API from the app store.
That's great. now, I have completely removing it from app store and it is not there already.
S
IANAL but...
IANAL but it seems like it would be legally possible to maintain the Drupal API app, as long as the copyright statement includes something like "Drupal source code and documentation is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2 and later." Also, looks like the draft trademark policy -- http://groups.drupal.org/node/15023 -- would allow non-commercial products (like a free iPhone app) to use the term "Drupal".
Bring it back!
I'm not brushed up on the whole GPL stuff, but whatever it takes please bring this app back. I would have paid $2 to have the api easily accessible in my pocket. Maybe put it in the store for free and accept donations?
Also, if anyone is looking for other apps to play with Drupal, I recently downloaded iBlogger to post blog entries to my Drupal site. Works awesome.
WebOzy: the web services company
About Me
What do you mean bring it back!
I just bought it but it doesnt bloody accept my username or password even tho I know I got it right!
but there are already drupal book...
I can't see this being a problem since there drupal physical book out there in the market. Why shouldn't this be a paid item as well? I would figure that this problem would be just like publishing any of those thousands of books that talk about GPL material. From what i understand from a quick google search, that GPL only applies to programs and has a number of clause/etc that talk about machine code/etc. btw, GFDL is would be the book/manual equivalent.
edit: Just noticed i have a copy of 'Beginning GIMP', published by Apress, and it does talk briefly about GPL. "[GPL] allows anyone to distribute the software, and even to charge money for it." So we once again have proof that GPL is programming/etc and that you can even sell GPL programs.
This might be, like Boris said, be a trademark issue and/or an issue with Apple terms (which I doubt in both cases).
Original material
The various book about Drupal are original works by those authors, talking about Drupal and describing its APIs. That's totally fine and they can sell those books under whatever terms they decide they can make money off of.
This thread is asking about repacking the Drupal API documentation, which is in the code in CVS and therefore subject to the GPL, not original material. That's the distinction.
OK ...
So if I understand correctly, the API Documentation is published via the d.o CVS and thus is GPL'd at v2+ ... once GPL'd anyone who downloads it can repackage it, distribute it (modified or not), charge for it (or not), etc ... as long as all the terms and conditions of the GPL v2+ license is fully complied with. Correct?
Correct
If you want to download core, run it through doxygen or something and make a printed book out of it, and sell that, you can do so as long as the book manuscript is covered by the GPL.
I don't know why you would want to do that, but legally you could. :-)
Why not FDL ?
Out of sheer curiosity why wasn't documentation placed under the GNU FDL instead of the GPL (which is "ok" but has problems in relation to documentation?
Also, at what point does publishing (a form of distribution) a book with in depth discussions about using the API (like "Pro Drupal Development" for example) become subject to the GPL ? Where is the line ?
Before my time
The "everything in CVS is GPL" rule dates back to 2001, long before I was on the project. :-) We're talking about the in-code API documentation here, which would simply be far too complicated to separate from the code itself for licensing purposes. The content on the site has been under a CC license since before my time, too.
As for when "copying and extending documentation" (GPL applies) crosses into "original documentation that mentions existing documentation" (the various books that have been published), that's a case-by-case call for an attorney. I don't know that there is a firm line. The key is that "discussing" the API is not subject to the GPL. Copying-and-pasting Docblocks would be, if it's enough content to count as a derivative work (and not fall under fair use).