Are Licensing terms for commercial third-party Drupal templates permitted under law?

First of all, there is nothing in the GPL whatsoever that prohibits charging for distribution (selling). You can charge $100 a copy for a Drupal module if you wanted to, under the GPL, and there would be nothing illegal in it. The only restriction is that you cannot prevent the person you sell it to from giving it away for free, or for reselling it for $50 a copy, or whatever.

As for distribution restrictions, the law is somewhat gray on just how far the GPL's coverage extends. Based on the information available to us at the moment, the DA's position is that the GPL does apply to PHP code in the theme (which includes template files), may apply to Javascript files depending on how they're written (not all theme JS depends on Drupal's core JS), and generally does not apply to CSS or image files (at least not unless they are also derivative works, which is rare).

So for theme shops selling themes, the answer is "sometimes, maybe, ask a GPL-savvy lawyer". (Note: Not all attorneys are GPL-savvy. There are still many that are knee-jerk anti-GPL and won't be able to give you valid advice.)

Well, thanks for the reply.

I interpret that to mean that I can charge whatever I want for any of my custom work on Drupal (including customizations to Drupal itself, or extensions), and prohibit redistribution of anything that's not PHP (well, I can argue, everything non-PHP is not directly dependent on Drupal, off-course where these are not derived from Drupal files).

Just a point on the licensing issue, I think the issue of intellectual property must be considered: If someone creates an original work such as a theme or module from scratch and then decides to allow a client access to it, say on a subscription basis, is this not OK? Aren't there other cases of copyrighted SASS's sitting on top of a GPL core program, I think there are many examples, a webpage for example can include closed and opensource software. At one stage someone decided to apply the GPL to Drupal, so isn't it down to the creator of the theme or module to decide which license to apply as long as Drupal is passed on intact with its original license and a separate license for the custom theme/module. So if someone creates a theme(not a modification of the core/original modules) which plugs into Drupal, can that not be under a proprietary license?

I'd be interested to have your points of view.

Mack

I have for some time been considering creating a PHPTemplate to ActionScript API bridge (something slightly similar to this idea --> http://groups.drupal.org/node/57628). With such a bridge the template files would all be compiled AS3 plus any graphic and audio resources. In short a designer would use the bridge to [1] ask for output text from PHPTemplate & Drupal, [2] ask for layout definitions & resources from an AS3 template file, and [3] integrate the data with the layout and generates the final page as SWF/SWT/SWC files.

This would create an environment where many designers could work in a familiar medium and get precise results, thereby avoiding most of the onerous Drupal learning curve for these non-coders. It also would allow them to create recyclable and general use Flash templates as opposed to the commonly single-use Flash pages they normally make.

The question arises about licensing of such AS3 templates with Drupal. These templates would seem to be outside the scope of the GPL in any way since they do not directly interact with Drupal and the AS3 statements as well as the SWF outputs run in completely different address spaces away from the PHP system.

Comments? (and please, leave the flash flaming outside the room)

It would've been nice to just give you this link: http://www.artisteer.com/?p=faq#faq6

...and think that the problem is clearcut, but a program for the sole purpose of converting code from drupal to AS3 templates still leaves some problems. For example, quercus has converted php functions to java functions. The license holders for php can ask for the source code of java, but they're not under obligation to release source code that speeds up converted code. Sort of like writing a book in English, and someone else translates it into Japanese. The original author holds the license terms for foreign-langauge editions of the work, but they don't own the work, only distribution rights (feel free to correct if not consistent across countries or if there's other factors). GNU isn't the same, because even after converting it to another language, it can still be deemed a derivative work.

If it functions as a stand-alone product and it supports multiple platforms, you may escape the derivative clause, as long as you don't reuse the code of any of the platform in any meaningful extent. http://groups.drupal.org/node/131079#comment-430449 ...Acubed has some more clarity on the subject. My suggested approach may open up the source to more than one platform if the analysis is flawed or it may depend on the judge.

If I make a page hit counter using php and mysql, and then open up an api for other programs, I don't see how this is derivative code. The glue code to make it work for drupal/joomla would not necessarily be a derivative work either. Joomla has a MVC approach to coding, while drupal seems to advocate the use of hooks.

In South Korea, the traffic laws assign percentages to whose fault it is in a traffic accident (depending on the angle, etc.). I mention that because if the work that you make can be used without drupal, then you have a stronger position that it is not a derivative work, similar in the vein of what Acubed has said.