Come together with the global Drupal community in Rotterdam, 28 Sept – 1 Oct 2026. Sessions, contribution, connection, and Early Bird savings until 8 June.
By antimidget on
I'm looking at building some apps/mods for Drupal and i want to sell them, am i allowed to do that? NOTE: not selling the Drupal web scripts only the mod i build to work in drupal...
Comments
Please dont take my word as
Please dont take my word as certain because its probably not.
But as i see it personally you cannot set like a website and sell Drupal stuff there to the public.
What you can do is create Drupal consulting services and sell those to your clients. And in the consulting service you create custom code (a module, whatever).
lets say for example that
lets say for example that the people/person that made the advance forum mod decided that his was so good that he/she/they wanted to sell it to users who wanted to user it on there drupal site, could they do that?
EDIT : DIDN"T make that mod just using it as an example
Hehe
Sure, I could sell advforum. Perfectly legal. But the code is GPL so I'd have to find a real sucker to buy it. ;)
My understanding is that you are welcome to sell your code or, heck, even Drupal itself, but the people you sell it to are welcome to give it away for free or sell copies of it themselves. So it's legal but not a very good business model unless you have something so awesome you can get $10K for the first copy and then don't care anymore. :)
Anyone want to buy a forum module for $10K???
Michelle
--------------------------------------
See my Drupal articles and tutorials or come check out life in the Coulee Region.
Ha ha, thats a great way to
Ha ha, thats a great way to put it!
Ironic
Acquia will be selling Carbon under GPL
Please see:
Please see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. This is basically a GNU page explaining that it is OK to sell free software. The only issue is this, can you get people to pay you for something they can get for free. Thats going to be the challenge.
Services is really where the $ seems to be though.
Best regards, Derek
http://collectivecolors.com
It's my understanding that
It's my understanding that you could sell it if you wanted to BUT because it's GPL you MUST release the source code-- so the question is, who would buy something they can get for free?
Because they can't get it for free unless somebody buys
Because they can't get it for free unless somebody buys it!
The GPL is not intended to frustrate developers making money off their work. It's designed to stop them exerting influence over the re-use of that work after it's been sold.
The noise that people make about how you MUST release your source code only means that you must provide the source code to the person that buys it. As it's PHP scripts that's sorta unavoidable anyway.
So
... You win. They win.
But. Anyone who buys your published scripts has the right to re-use and even resell that code of 'yours' or modified versions of it. With the same freedom passed on to the third party
To make this work for you:
You may create a niche market for your modules where you make a bunch of sales to many individual clients. If it's in their interests to just keep the code to themselves, or they just don't care, then the released code may not 'escape' into the public domain for a while. That is the window of opportunity for you to make money from your work.
This works well for themes, where you may create and sell a good theme to a client. Themes that integrate with Drupal are neccessarily GPL. On purchasing it, the code is now 'distributed' and the client may subsequently give it away. But there's not much chance that they see any reason to publish their special look to anyone else!
The other option - trying to avoid contamination by the GPL by 'clean-rooming' your code with library wrappers - is probably only worthwhile if you have code that can be shown to work without Drupal at all. This is not a requirement but it's the point at which a wrapper layer starts to make sense.
IANAL but I make money from working with Drupal for clients.
.dan.
How to troubleshoot Drupal | http://www.coders.co.nz/
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
Actually you can sell them
Actually you can sell them and they do not have to be GPL. Items only have to be GPL if they are on Drupal.org. There is though a problem with Drupal being trademarked. If you have to use a core function that is named drupal_???_??? then you are pretty much are opening your code up to Dries. So your best bet is if you go commercial is to code your modules so that they are independant of Drupal functions.
I would recommend building an application first that works without Drupal and the go back and create a module that uses the output from that application. Use includes from your app in the module. Avoid using the Drupal name by going into the code and looking at what the Drupal code is wrapping and write something similar without the name. Ex. drupal_goto is just a wrapper for PHP header().
http://drupal.org/node/25768
Hiveminds Magazine | FireOrb | Drupal Street | Drupal offline manual
When did you get your legal degree?
GPL complicates things significantly more then that and it depends on how the given module interacts with the GPL'd Drupal core code base. The best suggestion would be for those wanting to sell to get the advise of a lawyer n their rights in regards to the GPL'd code base of Drupal.
See the faq on the FSF for more information
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html
-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide -|- Black Mountain
-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide
I don't have a degree in law
I don't have a degree in law (electrical engineering if you need to know). But I do have friends and family who are. So I just asked them. One extended family member and friend works for Microsofts law department and he is the one that gave the advice on naming and seperation of applications. The other works for the U.S. Postal Service in their law offices. She handles things like open source Linux and CRM usage. Again the similar recommendations when it comes to extending open source software for sale.
Joomla's a pretty good
Joomla's a pretty good example of a GPL'ed product fairly similar to Drupal, and there's a huge paid module community there.
My personal opinion is that the Joomla "pay to play" culture is very harmful, but there certainly don't seem to be legal concerns with it over there.
You missed
You missed http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/ and the threads it sparked.
@WorldFallz sent me here
Heine ,
I believe @WorldFallz in http://drupal.org/node/237682#comment-780542 sent readers back to this your link http://www.joomla.org/content/view/3510/1/ (this is the only your post with a link in this thread)
Well, it is broken.
Any chance that you know how to find that discussion or what is the title of it?
and there's a huge paid
And there's a huge collection of non-GPL compliant extensions. Namely, those that obfuscate the source code and/or refuse to supply the source code. This has always bothered me about the joomla community-- it seemed obvious to me that many of the paid modules were in violation, but I thought maybe I just didn't understand it fully. Then I saw the thread that Heine pointed out and the huge uproar of threads and discussions that followed. Pretty ugly stuff. It was about that time i abandoned joomla completely (in favor of Drupal of course, lol).
In any case, I would hesitate to hold up the joomla community as a model GPL project.
I hesitate to do so, as
I hesitate to do so, as well. However, it is a prominent one, and their approach to the GPL as it pertains to modules is relevant to the discussion.
I ditched Joomla as well, about 50% due to the pay-to-play nature and 50% due to the lack of hooks in the code for modules.
Here's another question, if
Here's another question, if you want to host a GPL drupal module you've created on your own server, can you still create a drupal.org project that refers to it?
No
No, the code for drupal.org projects has to be in the drupal.org CVS repository.
--
The Manual | Troubleshooting FAQ | Tips for posting | How to report a security issue.
True for the dev snapshot,
True for the dev snapshot, but what about for an official release, could you link to a site for that?
No
No, you cannot link to a site for "official" releases.
--
The Manual | Troubleshooting FAQ | Tips for posting | How to report a security issue.
Or you could do what
Or you could do what Gallerix module does. It releases the gallery module to the public on Drupal.org but sell widgets from their own site.
---------- Personal Blog | tutorials | photogaphy -----------
Freelance web designer/developer: duvien.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We build engaging websites and intuitive designs that will benefit your business.
Duvien
Of course you can sell
Of course you can sell your own created drupal mods.
Corollary: the Drupal
Corollary: the Drupal community is, of course, free to bash you for doing so.
You can sell all GPL drupal modules
- You can sell all GPLed Drupal modules (and Drupal itself).
- Your customers have the right to use (and sell) these modules as determined by the GPL.
- If you release a module that is not GPLed, you are in violation of the Drupal licensing terms (GPL).
Point #3 is something we'll
Point #3 is something we'll have to wait until a court battle gets fought to determine, I suspect.
I'm a complete n00b when it
I'm a complete n00b when it comes to law (well, I know how to behave in traffic and that I shouldn't kill people... :-P ), but what if you create a module that you don't release at drupal.org, but simply keep to yourself? If you sell that, have your customers the right to sell it in their turn as well?
If you sell that, have your
The module you sell to your customers should be licensed to them under the GPL. In that case, they can sell (or give away) the module in their turn.
When in doubt, consult a good lawyer.
Hmm, why should it be
Hmm, why should it be released under the GPL? Because it uses core Drupal features that are under the GPL as well?
It's not that I want to work against Drupal, it's just that sometimes one might have an idea one doesn't want to give away freely...
um, yes.
In a nutshell, yes.
Anything that is built upon GPL open software must remain open. That is the only licensing requirement.
You don't have to pay anything, sign up for anything, and you get a heap of free support. The only requirement (a real, legal requirement) is that you don't attempt to derail this ongoing process.
In which case you are free to stop using software that was created with the explicit intention of being given away freely.
It says in the core - you are free to build upon this platform as long as you don't do anything to prevent others from doing the same. And using, learning from, and improving on what you've added.
If you choose to build upon GPL-licensed software - you are at the same time choosing that your own contribution can be re-used by anyone who sees it. And also that anyone who uses it has the right to see it.
I outlined above in this thread the way you can make this work for you, and make a decent amount of cash in a decent timeframe ... if you have a decent idea.
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
The key part of the GPL
The key part of the GPL (version 2) is this:
It's sufficiently vague about what counts as an independent and separate work. A custom module might well fall under that description, if it incorporates no GPLed code pulled out of Drupal. Yes, it functions within Drupal's API, but it'd be entirely possible to write a non-GPLed system with the same API calls.
This is why a court case is going to be required before things like this are truly settled.
Still pretty confusing. Here's an real example
Dman,
You seem to know the fundamentals of this pretty well. Hoping you can you give me an answer to just this. (I am not a very skilled programmer, my will run the answer by my partners, who are.)
I too have no wish to subvert drupal in any way, and we plan to make contributions to core as things progress. Be we have a module that adds value to taxonomies, and may by necessity, later, have to work with other proprietary code, as well (and possibly from 3rd parties). We don't exactly know yet, but need to know what our options are--or lack thereof. Generally, no matter what else was required, it would simply assume Drupal core and tax were installed.
What, exactly, would we have to do, to ensure that we could sell them from our own site, to any customer that wants them, under proprietary license? They would never be distributed with a copy of Drupal in any way (just assume it exists).
Would this be possible at all, or is the mere inclusion of the module's code required to load, enough to require it be GPL, even if everything else is our custom code merely interacting with the published Drupal API?
If it is a violation, is this "wrapper" solution you mention really practical? Can you break that down for me, so I can understand what it would have to do, and what would make it not a violation?
Thanks in advance.
(PS. I just read Ceejay's post after I submitted this.. and it sure seems relevant, but I'm still not clear)
my personal ethical attitude
I don't want to be a spokesperson one way or the other here, but
- I like and respect (and contribute) to Open Source by choice, for many reasons, including the synergy.
- I also think anyone with brains to make should have the ability to get paid for their intellectual effort.
So, to answer what I think is your question...
A bridge module is perfectly feasable. But it must bridge to something worthwhile.
You can create, distribute and still own a library of features that makes sense without assuming the Drupal environment exists.
The basic test (I think) under GPL is direct function calls within files. It's hashed out within many discussions around the place. So your core proprietary code cannot invoke (or depend on) anything from the Drupal (or contrib) function declarations.
You could in theory make your bridge module just stub a bunch of calls, but that would certainly be a bad-faith work-around.
What you should do to demonstrate your own codes significance is to provide an application that makes use of the full set of features that in no way requires Drupal. If you have a PHP utility in mind - you should be able to make it work stand-alone or among other similar platforms. Then you can enhance it with (or add it as an enhancement to) Drupal via the bridge module to make use of other features, like (maybe) themability, or the User management foundation.
If your release includes a wordpress and blogger compatible API as well as the Drupal bridge, then you can make your own rules, as they are clearly making use of your code, rather than the other way around.
I don't personally recommend this approach, as my favoured path is to make the work I sell to be so valuable directly to my clients that they don't want to give it away!
You are (I guess) targeting a reasonably limited market - a subset of the consumers who choose to use Drupal (for reasons that usually include the freedom to control their own code) - and who despite that also choose to pay for and mix it with your proprietary software they have no rights to.
So I don't think that your problem is a big one in the first year of release. There's not a lot of those folk, and folk like that will not be forthcoming about giving away IP they paid cash for.
OTOH, if they are going to 'pirate' it from you, then neither the GPL or your own copyright assertions will be much help to stop it.
After the first year of release of course, none of this matters much.
... unless you've actually followed my first suggestion and made a useful, re-usable utility with an independant API and a life of its own.
Things like CURL, ImageMagick, JQuery, Xpat, and many others (regardless of their own respective license) are independant creations that fit that criteria.
If your idea is that good, more power to you. If your idea is nothing without needing the Drupal foundation, then go fish.
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
What if the value-added is commercial
Dman,
Thank you for that patient effort to explain this furture. It's still pretty fuzzy on some levels, but getting clearer.
My problem is that our module WILL have to work with a 3rd party product that will ONLY work with Drupal initially, but will integrate with other products later.
To illustrate with something close to a real example, suppose our module provides a key administrative function, such as determining some permissions for taxonomy authorizations. This part is fully GPLed. But IN ADDITION to that function, the module can access an optional external library that spell checked the taxonomy terms when processed by the module. While the library might not initially work with other term source programs (other than drupal), it will do so later.
Is the potential to work with other products, and the optional nature of such a value-added plugin enough to permit its sale without violating the license?
PS
Perhaps this rather complex topic might benefit from its own forum called "General/Distribution and Licensing Issues? It someone moved only the few of these authoritative posts from you and others, it might save others a lot of time, and prevent so much duplication. I would be happy to help work on that, if you could tell me who to speak to about it.
droogie, pls don't take this
droogie, pls don't take this the wrong way-- but you really need to consult with a lawyer. You're getting into very specific minutiae of GPL law here and no one other than an experienced IP lawyer, preferably with direct GPL knowledge and experience, is going to be able to answer your questions definitively. And with the lack of court cases on these specifics, even they may not have the complete picture.
true 'nuff
Yeah, I think so.
Without being able to describe what you are actually trying to do, we can't discuss the actual case any further. Nor should you take personal interpretations such as mine as a basis for finding your own way to subvert the open process.
It is quite possible that some combinations of license/restrictions are fully illegal and trying to build and distribute a proprietary bridge cannot be done. In cases like this a developer has to either change their choice of library or write their own equivalent library that works the same as the troublesome one and allows the user/customer to do the swap themselves.
Or find an alternative technology stack.
You haven't yet been able to describe any clear reason why you would choose to try and apply closed-source restrictions to an open-source project. I'd continue to advise against trying to go down that path and have suggested several 'better' options. Make your money from the services you provide, not the 'product' you are attempting to copy-protect. Or the belief that your idea is so good that just talking about it will make it less valuable.
So get yourself a lawyer who can try and twist your desire through the cracks - or just advise you that it can't be done. I'll just leave it at "shouldn't" be done.
.dan.
How to troubleshoot Drupal | http://www.coders.co.nz/
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
Thanks to you both
I think we're just going to give up the idea entirely.
Even if I wanted to, our product uses things that cannot be GPLs, so it seems we cannot make it fit in any way.
The motive was simply to see if we could market a useful tool that we are patenting, but cannot release into the open source community. We were developing a module for Drupal, for ourselves, and thought it might have been of benefit to a large market of Drupal users as an add-on to both taxonomy, and to the permissions system (it can help facilitate a true group-based roles system with far more grainularity than anything in d-core or OG). We assumed that many might want it, and it could drop into a site to add-value to a customer's installation without really affecting the distributed GPL project. Clearly that was a very wrong assumption.
I guess I still don't understand all the rational of GPL (and their 193 point FAQ didn't exactly ooze simplicity or understanding). It seems what what was meant to expand software use, is actually restricting it in some ways.
I realize this is an ongoing debate. But it seems almost intuitive that some kind of "plug in" license might just create thousands of very useful Drupal plugins, many of the more popular of which would probably be cloned as open source anyway. As I understand it, Joomla went that route? What's the objection to it?
Whether you answer that or not, thanks again for the clarifications!
FYI and semi-off topic
While researching this, I found this post by Linux Torvald . It's discussing linux drivers, but the license issues seem similar. Just interesting to see how different philosophies get aired out.
So did it?
That post is well over a year old. Just curious if it got merged despite his protests? :)
Michelle
--------------------------------------
See my Drupal articles and tutorials or come check out life in the Coulee Region.
Damn, that's a great post!
Damn, that's a great post! :-D I fnd the way he writes fascinating, very interesting.
More on-topic: I agree with his statement. Never met the guy, never worked with him, just know he did something with Linux or so, but I really agree with him.
Linus
Linus was the founding author of Linux. One of the big dogs :)
sorry not to be more
sorry not to be more helpful, but this a really thorny and gray issue in the software IP area. A forum thread like this can be really useful for thrashing out all sides of the issue, but usually not so useful for any kind definitive answer. Heck, if the major corporations, courts, and lawyer$ haven't figured it out yet I doubt we can here, lol.
youch... it's a good thing you didn't mention the p-word sooner. I would have had an apoplectic fit all over you, lol. Seriously, software & patents--- two things that DON'T belong together.
wow that's so funny, I was exactly going to bring up how that whole mentality affects joomla in a bad way. Doesn't sound like you have much experience with it-- have you done much with joomla?
IMHUO, this mentality is one of the things that sunk joomla for me as a platform (in fairness though, it wasn't the only thing). For a couple of reasons. Let me see if I can explain.
First, it seemed that I would spend hours and hours trying to get a certain functionality out of joomla only to reach a dead end... a dead end where someone just happened to have their hand out to me with an oh so reasonably priced commercial product that would just so happen to solve my very problem. Ok no biggie (even though the site I was working on was non-commercial). Well those add up after a while. Before you know it you've spent $100s of dollars for these little "jewels"... for ONE site (noncommercial at that). The next time you have to pay again. Oh and btw, you don't necessarily get the source code either. You want to make a small change or fix something-- too bad. Seemed like a clear violation of GPL to me, but I figured what do i know.
It also smacked a little of "lets release a free gpl version of something just to wet people's appetites which will shuttle them to the paid version". Before long, it began to feel like (for me) joomla was just a bait and switch to get people hooked into buying all these commercial products. Hardly what the open source movement is supposed to be about. Then you start to wonder is functionality in the product itself is being compromised just to sell modules. It probably isn't-- but the mere fact that it feels that way says something.
Moreover, where's the motivation for people to contribute back? Developers will want to sell code to keep up with the jones's... "if XYZ, inc. is selling their modules, we should sell our modules". What about the little guys? A couple of times I fixed some bugs in stuff and thought, "why should I contribute this back so someone else can use it to make money".
It also blew up in the community itself-- there was a huge todo over it and several key members of the project left. All in all I don't think that model caused joomla anything but problems.
Contrast that to drupal... with a THRIVING community of contributors (all the patches... enhancements... bug features, etc). I've even contributed back several things myself (including my first module recently). I believe in large part, that it is due precisely to the true GPL open source nature of the project. I would truly hate to see that change.
Sorry, but I think the selling of patented or otherwise proprietary modules (and I'm not referring to bridges to other *self-sufficient* applications) is really contrary to the spirit of open source (not the coding of them, but the selling / distributing). It immediately segments the community into haves and have-nots. It's also a risky business model. The real business model is centered around services or custom code for clients that WONT be distributed.
Besides, trying to leverage the thousands and thousands of free man-hours that go into a project like drupal in order to profit from a relative sliver of code (after all, if it was a much code as drupal itself you could just write your own cms and sell that under any license you wish) just seems wrong.
add a very BIG imho and ymmv to all of that.
Great post..
Thanks world. That helped a lot.
And no, I didn't have much experience with Joomla. We junked it after a few weeks of experiments, and came to Drupal, but I hadn't seen that much drama over modules. (But i wasn't really looking, either). People seemed to be somewhat reverential, but I suppose at first glance, most communities do. Your objections and reasoning seems pretty sound. Part of me think there must be some middle ground, but I can see where it would be very hard to find--or enforce.
But one thing I am still a bit fuzzy on, can seen in what you said here:
<>
What exactly, is "custom code" that won't be distributed? Doesn't GPL basically let them do anything they want with our improvements? If they want to distribute it, they could? Right? I keep getting mixed signals on this. Does it come down to a definition of "distribute?"
And what about web services? If I write a completely separate program that merely exchanges data with drupal via a connection and a protocol, is that infected by GPL too? Some seen to imply yes, some some no.
No need to for thanks
No need to for thanks droogie-- it's a pleasure to engage in an intelligent thoughtful exchange on such a complex subject without it degrading into a flamefest.
What I was referring to, and I should have been clearer, was code that was that was strategic to the business and not cheap... code the client doesn't WANT to get out for free. I can't think of a good example at the moment but it would be something that would be important and pay well once or a few times-- it wouldnt be small and pay small amounts over a longer period of time.
And yes they can distribute it... but keep in mind that doesn't prevent you from selling it repeatedly. You still have a small period of time to actively sell it till it truly gets out into the wild. Remember, the client you sell it to has to get the code, you're not obliged to post it for free to d.o. So if you have something really cool or for a niche market you can sell the heck out of it for a short period. Like I said though, that wouldn't be my preferred business model but who knows, maybe it would work for you.
web services I would think are different. They are truly independent animals as any stand alone app could consume it. Especially now with the impending growth of the semantic web. I actually think RDF or something like it is where we are ultimately going. So if you could come up with a killer product like that anyone can interact with via a standard protocol, I think you're good.
I think if you create something independent that can be consumed by an standard protocol, it would be hard to claim it was infected by GPL, but again, though, this stuff is so bleeding edge I would definitely talk to an experienced IP/gpl lawyer.
joomla updates
Read this Joomla GPL announcement. They have some very specific changes to their interpretation which ended more in line with the Drupal communities 'general' understanding (we are not lawyers and release GPL stuff)
You do seem to have the nail on the head for the most part. My basic understanding of the GPL licenses is precisely to prevent others from launching closed source software built on GPL licensed code base.
-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide
Yeah, I've seen that one.
Yeah, I've seen that one. That may actually be the one that sparked the mini-revolt. I'm not sure, i read through many viral mega-threads about it and I don't remember which came first the chicken or the egg. I just remember that one day I went to go to the website of one of the modules I was using and poof-- it was gone. It was a pretty important module too... the equivalent of pathauto.
All I can say is that having lived briefly in both worlds, even for just a short period of time, I much prefer the Drupal type of community where every one is free to contribute back in whatever capacity they are able. Hobbiests, hackers, individual professional developers, or corporations-- all on equal footing with each other. It's a true community-- for me, joomla felt like a marketplace, nothing more.
Well, Drupal is open source
Well, Drupal is open source under the GPL-- modules released for Drupal need to be GPL as well. AFAIK, that is not negotiable.
You don't have to as explained above. But the purchasers of your software have all the rights you do. That's the entire purpose of open source. If you don't agree with or don't want to work within that system, then perhaps open source is not where you want to do your development.
I'm not trying to be snide--- but it's really that simple. Read the GPL, as licenses go it's not that difficult to understand.
I would highly recommend
I would highly recommend anyone interested in selling Drupal modules start by reading the GPL-- a copy of which is included with every module release. No, that wont necessarily elucidate all of the nuances of GPL software, but it's clear from some of these questions people aren't even reading the license before trying to determine how to sell modules. As licenses go, it's actually not that difficult a read. Start at the beginning I always say.....
Just something that crossed
Just something that crossed my mind: What if you've made a template with a neat stylesheet, some images, etc... The template files will probably not rely on anything Drupal provides, except for template.php. They won't work without Drupal, but it's Drupal that relies on the template files, not the other way around. CSS files definitely don't rely on any Drupal features, just like images.
So, when thinking like this, templates won't necessarily have to be subject to the GPL. Right?
...They won't work without
You actually answered your own question. Whether or not they will function independently is exactly the criterion that matters. AFAIUI, if something will not work without Drupal, it is a derivative of Drupal, and therefore required to be released under the GPL.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but a quick read of the GPL would have answered that question as well.
I've tried to read the GPL
I've tried to read the GPL before but I was never able to really understand it. Perhaps I should give it another try then.
But CSS stuff? You can't really say it works without Drupal, although a single stylesheet can work with different pieces of HTML. Just like the images.
=-=
CSS geared towards Drupal won't work without Drupal.
It's based on a combination
It's based on a combination of tags, classes and IDs. Templates won't work without Drupal-specific functions, but on another page with some of the same classes and tags (plausible, because I mostly use the same basic tags, IDs and classes in my layouts) it will work as well. Images will also work without Drupal.
themes are less infected
Quite true.
Drupal hasn't copyrighted the idea of calling a block a "block" or even a "block-block".
I think that the last I read was that is that stand-alone stylesheets, and the graphics that make up a theme are NOT neccessarily infected by the GPL. The logos etc definately not. they are independant files.
It can be argued that template.php files are, but (as I mentioned up the thread here)
... this is so seldom a problem because so often the theme - the look and feel that someone's developed - is not given away by anyone. Thus it's not published, or released, except to the client who has no reason to re-release it.
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
Sure it can. A proprietary
Sure it can. A proprietary CMS might easily use the same sorts of classes and IDs that Drupal does.
Well, that seems to be that
<>
I think the problem is, that even when I read that, it's not clear what functioning independently means. What if it adds value to something else, AND requires Drupal to work in order to bring some value to Drupal TOO. It does not seem quite as clear to someone just approaching this, as it might to someone working with drupal--and these licenses--for a long time.
Even so, thanks World. You've given me more to spend legal fees on, trying to understand this stuff :)
This further confused me
This post below made me feel that commercial modules that "interacted" with drupal, but were only sold to customers, and not publicly distributed otherwise, would be ok. Am I just reading the intent wrong here?
------------------------------------
My understanding...
Eaton - September 8, 2005 - 20:36
...Is that anything that *includes code from a GPL project* must by GPL. A module, by definition, is a freestanding piece of PHP code that *interacts* with the Drupal core via publically established APIs. Thus, a module or theme developer is free to restrict the distribution of their own work as they see fit.
http://drupal.org/node/30708
Well, this thread helped a lot
THis post was very useful. Sorry, but it's hard to find this stuff in one place, as most of you know. I have looked for things, but the threads go in all directions :(
Hope the post below helps others..
Drupal and GPL (as I understand it)
General discussion
Eaton - February 6, 2006 - 12:30
I've spent the last couple of days chatting with some of the core Drupal developers and reading up on the GPL licensing agreement that covers Drupal. There's been some confusion about what it means, exactly, and how it affects those of us who use Drupal in work for clients.
Full post: http://drupal.org/node/48185
It's like I said. Create an
It's like I said. Create an application that work without Drupal and use a module to connect to it and you're pretty much set. You can give away the module and sell the application. It also give you more freedom to code outside of "the drupal way" and use OOP. You could also offer a lite version that is a Drupal module only and a Pro version that requires your commercial application.
Right now I have two commercial java applications that I have created modules for. The modules use the java apps API and present the output within Drupal. But the modules will not work without the java applications.
Hiveminds Magazine | FireOrb | Drupal Street | Drupal offline manual
That's not always a
That's not always a solution, I think. If your own product relies on the 'bridge' (which should be released under GPL) you have created to connect your stuff with Drupal, your product has to be released under GPL as well.
rubbish
rubbish
Maybe not. "relies" is a
Maybe not.
"relies" is a small word that means a lot here.
If it means that "without Drupal, it is worthless" then it's a derivative work, a dedicated extension to Drupal, and pretty much infected.
If it can't do it's thing without calling back to Drupal core (which is what the post described) then it's hardly an independant piece of development, or of any value in and of itself.
If OTOH the new code is recognizable as a utility library or separate API, which happens to have a channel to Drupal implementations, then a bridge module should be fine.
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
And why's that? I don't mind
And why's that? I don't mind anybody saying I'm wrong (Humans make mistakes after all), but please make some efforts explaining why I would be according to you.
In what way does using a
1) In what way does using a bridge require the bridged product to be released as GPL?
2) And what if I manage to write a bridge without using any Drupal functions? So this bridge needs to be GPL also?
3) Linked to #2: Does merely working with Drupal mean that it's subject to the same license as Drupal (GPL), as I gathered from some of the posts here?
4) Also, suppose I manage to write a bridge to a commercial standalone software so I can use it with Drupal, can we legally force the software house who wrote that commercial software to released their software under GPL?
It's all about timing
The GPL explicitly allows you to charge a fee for delivery, service or whatever for your GPL-licensed code. There really is no debating that fact that you can legally charge for GPL software.
The only other argument here against selling GPL-licensed scripts is simply that some pirate or other evil-doer will nab your script and re-sell or freely re-distribute your application, making your pay-to-play model irrelevant. As a developer of a GPL-licensed application, access to which I charge a subscription fee, here are my thoughts based on experience:
1. If your userbase is largely noobs, they don't have the know-how to resell or re-distribute your stuff (setting up a site to do this is not for the beginner).
2. If your userbase is highly technical, they might re-distribute. Where does that leave you? Probably as the guy with the top hit on google which drives most people to your site for the product. This is especially true if you publish frequent updates and maintain a support forum for the application.
3. People will get your stuff for free, GPL or commercial license. It happens, get over it. If you think you can stop all the piracy, then that's what you'll be doing 90% of your time.
The post title is an important consideration. Since you are the code originator, you will be first out with the script and, being a savvy business person, you have a good SEO campaign underway to get you to the top of google. You will also be the first person with updates, and your site should have the best support forum for your product, as well as documentation. With all that, you will find many users appreciating your efforts and coming back for repeat business. Also, forum posts and online documentation need not be free and may be copyrighted so that you have legal recourse should someone try to simply copy your entire site.
My business model charges $5 for a 24-hour access window to download the plugin. Users might also select a $20, 1-year option if they want to come back often for updates or don't want the hassle of storing the plugin on their local computer. Other creative ideas to value-add to our subscription plans is to pre-bundle your plugin with drupal so that when someone installs your modifed drupal release, your plugin is also installed, configured and ready to go.
You will of course receive some flak from people who disagree with you. Most of these are due to inherent confusion regarding the rights, privileges and protections offered by the GPL. And there will always be people who want something for nothing and may complain. Don't let that bother you, it's all part-and-parcel of running a business. I went from 'free-GPL' to 'commercial-GPL, and for the most part people were happy to pay as little as $5 for access and also support future development. As a comparative note, less than 0.5% of people donated to the project when it was 'free-GPL'.
So, don't worry, be happy. Make your GPL-licensed script. Publish it on Drupal and sell subscriptions for access. Provide the source when requested by your members (in my case, i just publish the source but not the installation packages. Developers take it for free all the time, but most of my clients are noobs and pay for access to the installer packages).
Wow! Nice One!
I sent you an email about your post. I would like to get your real name if possible and republish this post as part of an article.
Hiveminds Magazine | FireOrb | Drupal Street | Drupal offline manual
small gripe with your
small gripe with your post....
"piracy" is incongruous with GPL... how can someone pirate was it is public? IMO, that's the one of the main purposes of GPL.
I see this alot with developers who develop code for OS/GPL projects and yet bristle when their code actually has to be released as GPL as well. GPL has a very valid and viable business module-- but it's just incompatible with selling proprietary code. If you disagree with the GPL business model and don't want people "pirating" your code, the answer is simple-- don't create code for GPL projects.
semantics
"pirate" meaning someone who may be running a warez site, pirating others proprietary code. Those 'type' of people have the know-how and lack the scruples such that they might re-distribute your GPL code for free. I think most everyone gets my meaning and this thread is not about the definition of a software pirate.
Publish it on Drupal and sell subscriptions for access. How?
Victor, i have found your "shop".
http://dev.anything-digital.com/Downloads/add.html
But you sell access to Joomla component, not Drupal module.
You suggest:
But what do you mean with "Publish it on Drupal"?
Source code of Drupal module must be in Drupal's CVS to be published in http://drupal.org/project/Modules (?)
Thus access to module could not be selled.
Initially you would have to
Initially you would have to do this. But if you look at any of the larger more well maintained modules (e-commerce among others) they have released on Drupal.org but recommend that you look to their main site for updates and support. This is where Victor's model comes in.
I like the way Victor does this. It's honest and cost efficient for both parties while the pricing does not put off anyone. Much better than waiting for $5 or $10 in donations but only getting inundated with calls for support and feature requests.
Hiveminds Magazine | FireOrb | Drupal Street | Drupal off-line manual
Example module please
Thank you for suggestion, but i can not find module that sells a separate version on it's own website.
Did you mean http://www.drupalecommerce.org/ ???
No, no retailers yet
Though no one has come out and established a retail business model of Drupal modules there are many that take advantage of the lienient policy of licensing. So you may find a GPL module on Drupal.org and a LPGL on another site. I believe 2bits.com and a few others do this. Most sell the modules under the guise of "services". This way they don't have to worry about keeping up with GPL distribution policies.
http://drupal.org/user/4063
But this has nothing to do with Victor's model. You could do it with any GPLed software.
Hiveminds Magazine | FireOrb | Drupal Street | Drupal offline manual
difference
I didn't realize that Drupal required the sourcecode. In the Joomla extensions directory, it's just a listing with offsite downloads. So maybe in Drupal, you publish a 'non-commercial GPL' version and have a link to the commercial GPL version on your site. You could embed embed links to the 'full' version inside the free one ("remove the powered by XXX by upgrading to our pro version" or something similar). Be creative. :)
.
There's no way to enforce that. You could remove the link simply by editing the source code of the free version.
Michelle
--------------------------------------
See my Drupal articles and tutorials or come check out life in the Coulee Region.
ofc
Of course, but if you have mostly noobs, they will pay for you to do it, as well have other features. As I said. Be creative.
..
not sure if this confuses matters or not but there are drupal themes on sale for between $350-$3,500 dollars at this site.
http://www.topnotchthemes.com/
It asn't working when I tried it earlier, so visit Robert Douglas's blog for more info: http://robshouse.net/blog-post/top-notch-themes-professional-themes-drupal.
Yep, and we consulted with a
Yep, and we consulted with a lawyer well-versed in open source software issues to craft our licensing agreement: http://www.topnotchthemes.com/license
In essence, that the template files (php) are GPLd, but we copyright and license the CSS and images, which are not dependent on Drupal. This seems to also have become the most prevalent interpretation within the Drupal community.
Yeah, I had a look at the
Yeah, I had a look at the licensing terms, and they fit my interpretation of the distinction between infected and non-infected code.
Those are nice themes, and you deserve whatever you can get for them. I think the tempate.php vs *.css distinction is fine by me.
As I mentioned above, the last thing a purchaser wants to do is immediately release the look they just paid for. It's possible, but not very sensible.
.dan.
How to troubleshoot Drupal | http://www.coders.co.nz/
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
Where can one download the
Where can one download the template files for free? ;-)
...
Find someone who paid for the theme who is willing to part with them after paying good money for it. :)
GPL doesn't mean that the people who make the themes have to give the code away for free. Just means someone who buys it is allowed to give the GPL'd code away if they choose to.
Michelle
--------------------------------------
See my Drupal articles and tutorials or come check out life in the Coulee Region.
Not that my previous reply
Not that my previous reply was meant truly seriously, but your post clarifies things a bit more :-)
I have read most of this thread...
...as I stumbled on it looking for something else entirely, but the subject interested me. Not because I'm interested in developing and then selling anything Drupal related, but because I was intrigued that someone else would be so selfish. (Forgive me if my words are harsh, but that was my first impression...) Why would someone want to charge for a module?
I started Drupal two years ago and I'm STILL learning...now getting into development after learning everything I can get my hands on. (Although it seems as soon as I learn the ins and outs of a Drupal release, they come out with a new one..lol...)
It is amazing that the guys that created Drupal spent hours and hours and hours creating this great management system and then chose to allow others to use it for free. I'm astounded by the many modules that others have contributed and spent hours and hours of their time writing them, only to allow others to use them for free. I CAN'T WAIT TO GET TO A POINT WHERE I CAN SPEND HOURS AND HOURS TO CREATE A USABLE AND STABLE MODULE, TO AGAIN, ALLOW OTHERS TO USE FOR FREE.
I did not pay anything for the use of Drupal- and still don't! I did not pay anyone for use of their contributed modules. I have not paid anyone for advice or help with issues through the community. I cannot, in good conscience then, create something off of the framework or to be included for use with Drupal, and then turn around and charge money for it.
I've seen sites that sell Drupal themes...and if the GPL included themes, I would go buy a copy of ALL of them and post them in the Drupal contribs for free as soon as the paypal payment was processed. I've toyed with the idea of hiring someone to create a couple of modules for my site due to time issues- and then contributing them for free. But I haven't reached that point yet where I have to make a decision on that as I'm still fooling around with things and reading Pro Drupal Development.
My morals and standards don't allow me to be so greedy as to take and not give anything back. That's too bad for my bank account, I guess. But I'll feel GREAT...and that's well worth it!!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
Which of the two amazing concepts do you find most incredible?
You've said that
- you find it astounding that someone could make and release great software for free,
and you also
- find it hard to believe that anyone would even consider charging for the fruits of their brain-strain.
What are the other alternatives you find more normal?
Any IT worker will have some opinions on Intellectual property, but most can see that developers deserve some way to be able to get re-imbursed for their hours of effort or cool ideas. The Bazaar is not a charity.
The GNU license (and most others) were not designed to prevent developers from getting paid ever. If you think you are doing the free software movement a service by antagonistically 'releasing' someone elses work, you've probably got the wrong end of the stick.
.dan.
How to troubleshoot Drupal | http://www.coders.co.nz/
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
No, that's not what I said...
I said I find it amazing that these guys would be so generous as to hand it out for free, as in, my faith in human generosity and kindness restored. How is that damned if you do?
Damned if you don't. That's another story. I feel that if there's a community giving away free stuff/helping each other (drupal) and someone wants to turn around and charge for their special gem that they made off of free contributions that they had to do nothing more than download or ask for is, in my opinion, greedy. Plain and simple. I'm not talking about licenses and legality. I'm talking about character.
"Oh wow...look at all this free stuff! I'm going to take a bunch of what other's have put their blood, sweat, and tears into but I'm not going to give mine back. No way. I'm gonna charge for mine...." Bah Humbug. Or maybe it's more of a case of 'someone should be making money off it, so I'll take that spot". Bah Humbug times two.
If the IT works FOR the Drupal developers and develops a paid module, fine by me. They created the open source in the first place. Otherwise I would expect (and this is assumption) that the IT creates Drupal modules/themes because they:
a.) need them for a client, in which case they've already been paid. Had it not been a Drupal module or some other open source project, in most cases, the company would own the module, not the IT, and he'd not have permission to sell it anyway. Same thing with graphic designers and logos. But that argument could go round and round. (same with photographers/models/etc.)
b.) doing it in their free time because it's something they WANT to do.
c.) doing it for their own website.
In the last two cases, they're building their castle on someone else's (free) foundation and plugging in someone else's oven. It's only proper etiquette to then share some bread that they baked in that oven.
you can avoid folk that write software, but why call them names?
Sorry, "damned" was not the right cliche title to use. I dunno what it should have been. It was late.
My point was that you were incredulous about both free software and priced software at the same time, it read funny, that's all.
Anyway. I don't think it shows bad character to charge some money for your services. I use open-source software, but that doesn't mean I am beholden to give my time away for free and never get paid.
Open-source foundation or not,
If someone wants me to do specific code, they pay me for it.
I don't think that makes me a greedy bad character.
That's not a huge leap of conscience from:
If someone wants specific code from antimidget, they can pay him for it.
What do you think makes up the great divide between a client and a customer?
Is catering to one fine, yet catering to the other evil?
Is it simply about tense - whether you get paid before or after the job is done?
Is it about which one of you identified the demand for the code?
I don't mind waxing lyrical about the coolness of open-source communities, and giving back and all (I do a lot), but most of us have to make a buck. Selling software is a perfectly legitimate way to do so. Even if it was originally developed for one client (which does account for many modules here), being paid once doesn't mean the product is now worthless. A large part of Software development hinges on being able to sell more than one copy of the code you wrote, right?
Client/customers have the choice to :
OSS or not - those are all good choices in the marketplace.
Do you believe that option 4 should never be available just because the technology stack was originally Open Source? Reducing the consumers options just because no philanthopist has put enough free time into option 3 to produce the exact solution that they need?
.dan.
How to troubleshoot Drupal | http://www.coders.co.nz/
.dan. is the New Zealand Drupal Developer working on Government Web Standards
I get what you're saying, BUT
..and I know you've contributed a lot to the Drupal community. I see your posts for helping people and answering questions everywhere. I have a lot of respect for you for that.
My point is this. Everyone starts as a newbie at some point. They take all of this free software and information and instead of giving back to the community that gave so freely to them, they decide to sell it back to them instead.
Charging for services, i.e. building a specific theme for someone, importing to Drupal, installing modules, or even something as simple as psd to html/css is NOT what I'm talking about. Due to client/customer time constraints, lack of knowledge (and/or unwillingness to learn), etc. many people are making money by providing Drupal services. I think that's GREAT! In fact, I think it helps make this a better community because 'normal' people have that option and it will attract more experienced developers into the fold. However I separate those people from the Drupal community as most of those folks just want a kick *ss website and will spend very little time here communicating- unless it's to complain, of course...lol.
Before I decided to take the time and code my own, I was about to hire someone to take my psd to Drupal. I have absolutely no problem with that. It would have saved me a bunch of time. However I decided against it since I want to know everything that's going on with the whole back end and process. And not to mention that I'm so in love with the idea of people helping each other and I want to give back.
However I can't get on the boat of conceding that someone uses free tools and advice to make something to sell back to the people that gave them free tools and advice.
So my difference here that I'm trying to make is...if you're going to code to sell to Jon Lazyhead who just wants his site up and going in a week with all the fancy gadgets, go right ahead! However, selling back to the community that gave to you is disheartening. I just don't consider other members of the Drupal community "clients" or "customers". I consider them "future friends". Many of the people on here are developers or have some specific knowledge about Drupal itself. So I kind of see it as "Withholding the love" so to speak. Being the kid at school who willingly takes candy that the others hand out, but when he brings candy to school, he either keeps it all to himself or charges them for it because his pieces are bigger. (This actually came up with my 12 year old son. He was the one selling it!! I had to correct that REAL quick while commending his enterprising. He now sells customized pencils and gives the candy away for free...lol.)
And I guess the difference is-once I get to that point where I can make an exceptionally cool module for Drupal, it will tickle me pink to share it in the CVS for all to use, learn from, modify, and maybe make their lives a little easier. It would never enter my mind that I should charge the community for that module simply because I created a gem. And it's not about kudos. (You can read any bug issue thread in any of the modules and see that the complaints far outweigh the thanks.) I don't even know who half of the module developers are that I'm going to use and I expect it would be the same for mine. It's simply about sharing and feeling good about helping others out. (That is, until it completely breaks someone's site....heh.)
Speaking of which...
...since all of the modules here are open source and "use at your own risk", what would be the legal implications of selling a module and it breaks a site? Since the customer is paying for it and they obviously don't get a chance to look at the ins and outs of the module before purchasing, could that open someone up to a lawsuit if it breaks their site and they lose customers/business?
=-=
The developer of the module should be afforded the opportunity to install the module him/herself, so that they can fix any issues that crop up. Afterall some clients, don't know what information is relevant and what isn't when it comes to information that is passed on to a developer. I certainly am not siging a contract whereby I can't work on a minimum of a backup of an existing production site to insure that the work I am doing is relevant to their application and doesn't include any client "oh yea! I forgot to tell you I use that module, or that I've had my code altered by this or that, or him or her.
As far as the rest of the converstion, I think it just goes to prove that you will always have a far left & a far right.
Drupal may not cost me any money, but it does indeed cost me time. Time is the most valuable commodity on the planet. There are many ways to give back to the community beyond coding for them.
_____________________________________________________________________
My posts & comments are usually dripping with sarcasm.
If you ask nicely I'll give you a towel : )
Drupal is similar to Joomla
Drupal is similar to Joomla and I beleive selling apps/mods created for Drupal would be similar to Joomla... FYI a quote from Joomla site "We've also decided that we do not have the authority to publish Joomla! under a version of the GPL that gives exceptions for proprietary extensions."
La Jolla Homes
http://www.lajollabeachproperty.com
Drupal, Joomla, GPL
@VeryMisunderstood :: there is no "left" or "right" in this. There are only people who understand or do not understand the GPL, business, some basic economic realities, and some basic concepts about freedom, diversity, and choice in markets and human behavior. Those who do not understand these things often seem dogmatically attached to disinformation or misconceptions because of the intensity of their devotion to the experience of getting software "for free." These are the noobs and others with a great deal of time on their hands and/or circumstances that allowing them to do a lot of financially uncompensated or indirectly compensated work for themselves and others.
@WorldFallz :: "piracy" is indeed not the right term for what happens when a person takes GPL code that someone else is distributing by means of a process that involves some financial compensation to themselves. It is however a problem and a net negative phenomenon UNLESS the "pirate" (for lack of a better term) provides full, complete, and correct code on an ongoing basis, offering support and critical (security) updates if the original developer does not. This obviously will lead to collaboration between both parties and probably a consolidation of their efforts, or the split of the software into two forks. To sustain a project of making a fee-based GPL product free of fees would require a level of time and effort few people will put up and fewer will sustain without looking for some way to financially justify or defray it. It's the kind of thing only a single (no spouse) coder with a good day job and Asperger's Syndrome would do. Anything less would create a problem of disorganized, vulnerable, untended code which is frowned upon and in no one's interest, "pirates" included. Using "pirated" GPL code carries the same and even more risks than using pirated copyrighted code.
Think of free/freedom from dependencies, indirect costs, and low total costs of ownership. A diversity of product options with various and direct and indirect costs provides the maximum freedom. This can only happen in a GPL ecosystem that includes financial exchanges for code.
@Homes :: the foundation/group that holds the Joomla trademark wants to interpret the GPL to mean that any code that ties into Joomla must also be GPL. It's like Twitter or Google saying that if you use their API, you have to copyright the code that uses that API. It limits choices, diversity, and freedom; it mandates a fixed dependency. So Joomla people referring to a prohibition on "proprietary extensions" for Joomla are not being accurate. A variety of non-proprietary or differently proprietary extensions that are not GPL have garnered some opposition, and so have people who are attempting to associate fees with GPL extensions in ways that are not approved by some people for obscure and probably incoherent reasons. If this is eventually settled in the courts, I would guess that the restrictionist efforts will fail substantially if not completely.
Take note of dotnetnuke, which is open source but built on Microsoft .NET and runs on the proprietary WAMP stack. It has and supports free and commercial extensions under various licenses, and the dotnetnuke trademark can be used by third parties under some a well-articulated and generous policy. Microsoft+Open Source+different kinds of costs and different kinds of costs=a great deal of options and freedom.
Take note of Magento as well.
more on GPL "piracy"
Perhaps some FOSS devotees have falsely assumed that GPL is basically a "legalization" of "piracy" such that there is no such thing as "piracy" per se and commercial software can't exist under GPL because it will be "pirated." (Take a look at some Turkish forum that posts code snippets and files for commercial Joomla extensions--it looks like piracy and will feel like piracy with all the associated risks if you use it.)
The truth about GPL is that is just drives costs down, not to zero but below the hidden costs of "traditional piracy" and exposes the value and relative quality of paid professionals who must justify their fees with quality products and services, not by the quasi-monopoly and masking of the product via copyright.
FOSS and GPL within it is a framework for an economic/business model where much software is free or inexpensive and the costs and value are all up front. You also have the option of paying no direct costs much of the time for "free (from fees) software" which requires you to spend your time (an indirect cost) doing what it's often easier to do by paying someone else to do it. In fact, some major extensions for Joomla would cost you tens of thousands of dollars worth or time (yours or somebody else's) when paying $30-$200 delivers them now with a year of support and free upgrades for life.
Of course there is a valid concern that in time a commercial GPL model could be so widely adopted that it would push direct software costs up significantly. I think that will not happen because GPL purists will always react to that, and web dev is heading toward a "free" hosted solution and/or widget based model--especially in the low end markets that FOSS CMSes like Drupal have locked onto. The TCO for a self-hosted, self-maintained FOSS-driven site is quite high if it has any complexity to it.
The large number of people simply using Joomla, Wordpress, Drupal, etc. to do little more than "blog" may not want to hear this, but they have probably had an excessive and myopic influence on articulating what "free open source software" means and is/is not. It is probably imperative that it be well-articulated now as an open and open for business model so as to minimize the threat of excessive commercial influences having an easy time dominating a market whose residents do not understand it and joust at windmills.
PS on Joomla--its predecessor Mambo and several forks of Mambo have embraced commercial extensions, and there are a number of commercial extensions developers whose products are compatible (with a single distribution) on 2, 3, even 4 different CMSes in the Mambo line.
The way I see it
The way I see it, so long as your own code is not re-using or has copied ANY of the Drupal code, you are not bound by the clause, because you are not using any of Drupals code which is covered under the GPL.
So you would need to create your own functions, or use standard PHP ones - i.e. none of Drupals created functions.
Wanting to eat = greedy??
proudleo,
I know where you are coming from but as a commercial (yes joomla) AND GPL developer I think you have gotten yourself lost somewhere along the way.
I run a shop with over 65 extensions. Half of which are free to download, half of which are commercial. I employ 11 people - developers, a docs write and an artist. We all work very hard to provide top notch support and are constantly improving our products as fast as we can.
All of this is only possible because we run a commercial model. If I ran a free to download model as I did originally then I must spend most of my time making the money I need to feed, clothe and look after my family somewhere else and thus spend 40 hours or more a week there. Which = less code for everyone.
Because we are commercial we can produce many, many more extensions than a free to download developer can, and we make them available at a really low price. $5 a month for limited access $60 a year for access to almost everything and $100 a year for access to absolutely everything - Unlimited domain installs, priority service, GPL code and 65 extensions. That's under a dollar a year per extension to access 11 people's hard work.
We also give back to the community by sponsoring 5 other free to download projects, 3 Joomla days and other events. Things that people with entitlement syndromes who demand free code are happy to take advantage of but would never dream of donating to.
Would you expect your doctor to work for free? Your car dealer to give you a car for free? Your plumber to fix your pipes for free? Why is it that any other professional on earth is allowed to charge for their work but an open source developer is not? Do you work for free? If so how do you eat?
Dries and co give Drupal away for free yes, because it is *profitable* for them to do so. They make their money elsewhere based off Drupal. Making it free = it becomes popular so their skills and services get into demand. Also notice his new project to make a commercial Drupal? He even has Venture Capital funding for it! Just because you personally are not paying for it doesn't make it an altruistic effort for a better world. Dries probably has more money than all of us on this thread put together.
Now proudleo, would you work 60 hours a week unpaid working for someone else? Because if so then please I would love to convert all my extensions over to Drupal and I would be happy for you to give your time to me for nothing (hey you can even do just the free to download ones if you like). Because that is what you asking commercial devs to do. Give their time and sweat to you for nothing.
If someone chooses to give it away then that is their right. I personally give a lot more to the joomla community than any 'I demand free code' person on the planet. But it is not a requirement, nor is someone morally corrupt for wanting a fair trade for their work. The morally corrupt are those who demand that they receive value from others with returning fair value back.
Demanding my time for nothing is no different to demanding my money or my computer or my house for nothing. Doing that would be incomprehensible. But demanding my time is not?
Open source developers are human too. We have to eat. We have wives, kids and pets that also need to eat, need clothes, need schooling, need to go to the doctor and so on. And if you want top quality code and quick turn around and good support then we need to work full time at it. and if we need to work full time at it then we need to get our income to live from somewhere.
I have a couple of good blog posts about this actually, but I won't link them until I know it's ok too.
second that
I have used Danayel's free extensions and have enjoyed his blogging and quick responses in a support and general info capacity for some time. ("What's the best...What do you think aabout...?") I started a free membership on his site almost a year ago and recently purchased a charter membership for $200. They were running out of those memberships, and I figured I'd support a crew that's really moving and invest in their future.
I don't actually have a need for or currently use Danayel's extensions, but I am sure I will in time, and I am sure the things they come up with next will be hot, so I leaped at the chance to pay a small amount to make everything they do from now on "free" for me and my clients. (I apologize if I am interpreting the charter membership too broadly. It seems too generous to believe, really.)
Such transactions, to my mind, give me a material reason to hope and expect a good long-term relationship with Danayel's business. There is a totally different "tone" to relationships with extension developers who do not have a business model -- the future and integrity of their software rides on their morale and life circumstances; it is perhaps more vulnerable to the politics and emotion of totally uncompensated GPL development where even the biggest and strongest teams often move very, very slowly. (Sure you can;t rush quality, but not meeting deadlines kills projects and is not an acceptable answer to paying clients. Neither is giving them beta releases.)
Since Danayel's group does not restrict how many sites I use their products on, $200 is nothing for even a few years of support and access. My clients benefit by getting Danayel's extensions for "free" too as I do not charge them when sites I build use commercial extensions like his. I don't pass on costs I can recoup just by doing my work, especially when that cost makes my work easier/quicker/better.
This organically grown arrangement is not about selfishness or altruism, nor even profit motive. It is about providing the best products, service and support to our clients in a symbiotic chain that allows all three parties to benefit. We earn money doing work we enjoy and are proud of, which serves our clients well and keeps us off the streets. As far as I know we are not corporate co-optators of open source but often typical of IT professionals and self-taught folks without a conventional IT background who found accessible, fun, and potentially self-supporting work in open source.
Additionally, Danayel did not mention that he has a standing offer on his site to let people "earn" what are normally paid membership levels by making good bug reports and proving themselves to be persistently useful.
Naive and moralistic tendencies in many "money" discussions should not get in our way of seeing the real issues of value, efficiency, stability, cooperation, and trust--all things that generally do and rightly should be connected with a material compensation/exchange.
More info on Commercial products please
I am interested in these commercial products as in my experience I have found you get good high quality products with excellent support - because people have more to lose if they don't offer that.
Feel free to add to my new thread here: http://drupal.org/node/283951
Thanks!
Alternative solutions?
Well said... It does seem that somethings amiss in the model, because it shouldn't be so easy to let angel developers get hung out to dry like that. It doesn't feel true to the spirit of drupal to run a model that hides creations from the community, but it's clearing needed...
I would be interesting to see whether there was a way to bring centralized donations and transparency to the drupal community. How nifty would it be if, when you went to check for updates via the Update status module -- the very time when you're just about to reap the bounty of a developer's hard work -- if you saw right there how many install the module had, how many commits the maintainer had made, and then how much had been donated to them in the past month? Wouldn't that sort of feedback make it harder for them to drift off our collective radars?
Thoughts?
Anyhow, really interesting thread here, to say the least.
Devil's advocate
Just want to chime in -- while I agree that the current setup is tough to make a living on, I have to play devil's advocate. If everyone tried to do what you're doing, this whole project would fail, or at the very least, be much less spectacular and less wonderful. So what gives you the privilege to be the exception to the rule -- to operate in a manner than, if generalized, is toxic to the community? I'm not challenging you specifically here, but it's a question that doesn't have an easy answer.
And I know you work damn hard, but flip the coin, it would seem that YOU are the one riding on a little piece of everyone else's coattails. While we can't all be developers, who's to say that those with "entitlement syndrome", those who donate time to test unproven products -- who's to say that their time is worth any less than yours. Why are they not worthy? Without this community, developers would pay good money to get such an assortment of user feedback.
No plumbers don't work for free, but if you were part of community that gave this plumber free pipes and free tools and free training support, you'd be right to be a bit miffed when he didn't share his services with the same open spirit of generosity, right?
But having said that, I'm torn. Drupal works on an exceptional model, and the logic is tough to tackle. I don't feel that what I've said here is skewed or dishonest, but it still seems... off... I think that's just the way it has to be, since it's like we're running a socialist organization in a capitalist community -- not to sound too fringe here :)
Anyhow, end rant. Cheers all!
Its ok to charge
I think its perfectly normal for you to charge someone for the modules that you create. U can even package that inside Drupal and sell it & if its good & useful enough, ppl might buy it. But almost everybody on this forum appreciate open source modules.
The Waters are Getting Murkier
At DrupalCon Chicago, Dries outlined a plan to make Drupal the "hub" for a variety of services, including iPhone / Android apps, web services, and other bunches of fun.
Now according to the discussion I've read so far, XML-RPC type functionality is protected. But as these apps get more intermeshed, then the debate will grow. From the sounds of it, part of the plan in D8 is to allow sites to build iPhone and Android apps directly. Usually these types of apps are for sale. How will that interact with the GPL'ed code?
The Drupal Source Exchange is here!
After years of fiddling I decided it was time to just do something. So the Source Exchange is now open. Although it's truly alpha at Drupal.se I felt that keeping it secret and working in the background would not make it better. So check it out.