GTranslate links to a non-GPL version of the code

Hi,

The developer of Google Translate didn't accept my changes to his module ( you can see the project revision history http://drupal.org/node/89552/revisions/view/790754/790802 ). I wrote him a message and didn't get a response. So I decided to create a new project, since I don't want anybody to keep me off from making changes.

Regards,

Edvard

GTranslate Pro version is a separate product which is not licensed under GNU/GPL. GTranslate is licensed under GNU/GPL. GTranslate and GTranslate Pro has the same URL (http://edo.webmaster.am/gtranslate) from where GTranslate can be downloaded and the same time GTranslate Pro can be purchased. If I don't have a right to direct a user to that page, let me know, I'll remove that link.

Are both gtranslate and gtransate pro drupal modules?

No, they are not.

So, why would anyone buy the pro version?

And if the pro version is not a Drupal module, why are you linking to it from d.o?

Moreover, a look at the cvs commits from gtrans shows that your code is there: http://drupal.org/project/cvs/89552

RE:

The developer of Google Translate didn't accept my changes to his module ( you can see the project revision history http://drupal.org/node/89552/revisions/view/790754/790802 ). I wrote him a message and didn't get a response. So I decided to create a new project, since I don't want anybody to keep me off from making changes.

The revision history you link to is from the project page, which has nothing to do with code.

A look at the cvs log shows you with the most recent commit: http://drupal.org/project/cvs/89552 -- so, no one is keeping you from making changes. This looks like you unnecessarily duplicated the project.

+1 for unpublishing the duplicate while this gets sorted out.

And I'd still like a clear answer as to why, if the pro version is not a drupal module, you are advertising it from drupal.org.

What exactly is the pro version, and how is it related to this project?

And the link to the actual commit from edo888 on gtranslate: http://drupal.org/cvs?commit=292928

See http://drupal.org/node/644738#comment-2312760

Just edited the project page to remove the link to the pro version.

Again, +1 to unpublishing this while the details get sorted out.

Are you saying that GTranslate is not a Drupal module?

No, I'm saying that GTranslate Pro is an independent stand alone product, while GTranslate is available for Drupal and other CMS.

If then GTranslate Pro is not a Drupal module, then the GTranslate page should be changed; reading that page, I get that both are Drupal modules.

There is no anything in that page that leads that Pro version is a Drupal module.

So, why would anyone buy the pro version?

There are some differences described in my page.

And if the pro version is not a Drupal module, why are you linking to it from d.o?

As I mentioned before, both have the same URL address.

The revision history you link to is from the project page, which has nothing to do with code.
A look at the cvs log shows you with the most recent commit: http://drupal.org/project/cvs/89552 -- so, no one is keeping you from making changes. This looks like you unnecessarily duplicated the project.

From that page you can see that I added description for new features and Omar deleted them, changing the page to it's original state.

And I'd still like a clear answer as to why, if the pro version is not a drupal module, you are advertising it from drupal.org.
What exactly is the pro version, and how is it related to this project?

I'm letting people know, that there are more features they can have on their Drupal based website.
You can see a differences list in http://edo.webmaster.am/gtranslate page. They are related, because GTranslate Pro can translate a Drupal website.

Why it should be unpublished?
There are many companies which have free modules and templates available for Drupal, but they also have paid versions and products.

No it isn't that way. I've submitted the new module to gtrans project, you can see now that it is unpublished for Drupal 6.x version. I already showed that Omar deleted the new features description from the product page. So he disagrees to my changes. I wrote him a message, but he didn't respond. Probably he is busy. I don't want to wait, so I've created a new project. I can see that there are a lot of other projects that have similar features. So why I cannot have my own? If I don't have a right to do anything, it should be forbidden from the code design. I had a right to create a project, because Omar didn't accept my changes, and I did it.

And why is the

Visit http://edo.webmaster.am/gtranslate for Pro version.

is a violation and why it should be removed?

kiamlaluno,

1. I wanted a cvs account, the maintainer told that he will accept my changes, so you have created it for me, right?
2. Now the maintainer shows that he is not agree with the changes I make. What should I do in that case? Of course you or me or someone else should create a new project for me.

Isn't it logical?

What you say isn't logical, and the rules you have aren't fair, well this case demonstrates that.

Let's pretend that I don't have an account (you've blocked this one or I didn't get one).

I have a working Drupal module and I need to tell Drupal users that there is such a module. What is the best place to tell drupal users that there is such module? Right, it is official drupal.org site. I come here and tell that I need to post this module to your website and according to the design of your community, to make so, I need a CVS account. And I ask you for a CVS account. You tell: you know there is already a similar module, so better you and the current maintainer cooperate, you know, one head is good, two is better. I accept that, and ask the maintainer to accept my module as a part of his project. After couple of weeks pass I get a green light from the maintainer (just think what you will do in case I will get rejected, your rules aren't for prosper of your community in that case, since you will have a dead project instead of new one). Now the maintainer doesn't respond to my messages and he changed back the page and told me that he doesn't accept the changes I made. So, I ask you to create a new project for me, what you do?

@edo888 --

Just to clarify: you have the most recent commit to the original module: see http://drupal.org/project/cvs/89552 , or http://drupal.org/cvs?commit=292928 for your actual commit.

No one has interfered with this, at all.

The project description page has been changed: see http://drupal.org/node/89552/revisions/view/790754/790802 --

The owner of the project edited out your advertisement. Your code was, and still is, in the cvs repo.

So, it appears that you created a duplicate project for the sole purpose of creating a project description page with your advertisement.

This is the gist of what Omar says in http://drupal.org/node/644738#comment-2312760

In short, the duplicate project has nothing to do with code, as the code is currently in the repo of gtrans. Moreover, your responses above about your compliance with the GPL are less than satisfactory. Don't tell me (or others) to go to your web site, and that the answers are there. I've *been* to your web site, and my questions remain unanswered. So don't tell me to go to your web site. If there is something I'm missing, include it here, in the thread.

I would like to see you unpublish this project on your own; as things currently stand, it looks like you are not living up to the agreements you made when you applied for the CVS account, which could lead to your account being revoked/temporarily blocked.

I haven't told that the code was removed. I told that the new features description were removed and you can see that from the diff. I don't see any violation when I put a link to my website where I sell also non-GPL product. If it is a violation, then show me the rule where it clearly states that it is a violation.

What is the difference between advertising that you are doing paid customizations on your code and selling a product? If one is a violation, then the second can also be counted as a violation.

Please describe the difference between the product you sell and the module you put out here on drupal.org --

And don't tell me that it is explained on your website, as I have been to the site, and from your site, it appears that you sell a more fully featured version of your module.

If that is the case, then you are fully within your rights to sell the module, but the distribution of it would require that it be licensed under the GPL (to the best of my knowledge, anyways).

But in any case, please explain how these two things are different, and how they relate.

bonobo, I've already answered once to this question, but I can repeat one more time.

GTranslate Pro is a stand alone product. GTranslate is written on Drupal base and it is also available for Joomla! and TYPOlight.
I didn't mention that GTranslate Pro is a stand alone (I'll do that now to make it clear), however, I didn't mention that it is a Drupal module.

Moreover, I don't think that if a product is written on Drupal base it need to be GNU/GPL. It only shouldn't be hosted on drupal.org
GTranslate is a Drupal module and is GNU/GPL so it can be hosted on drupal.org website.

And please don't forget to answer to question:

What is the difference between advertising that you are doing paid customizations on your code and and advertising that you are selling a product? If one is a violation, then the second can also be counted as a violation.

To start, IANAL.

RE:

Moreover, I don't think that if a product is written on Drupal base it need to be GNU/GPL.

If it is a hosted solution, then yes. If it's distributed, then to the best of my understanding the code that is distributed needs to be GPL'ed.

RE:

And please don't forget to answer to question: What is the difference between advertising that you are doing paid customizations on your code and and advertising that you are selling a product? If one is a violation, then the second can also be counted as a violation.

Given that I'm not doing either of these things, this is more your problem to figure out than mine to solve. But as a courtesy, here is my opinion --

Both selling a product and advertising a service are fine, provided that you are abiding by the licensing terms of the project you are working with. The "violation" you mention has nothing to do with the advertising per se, but in *what* you are advertising. If you go back to my original question, it had to do with the licensing of the product you sell. All of the conversation about the fork transpired from there.

And for what it's worth, I still have no idea about *what* people get when they pay you 79.00 --

Both selling a product and advertising a service are fine, provided that you are abiding by the licensing terms of the project you are working with.

So why you insisted to remove the link from the project's page in that case?

Question to lawyers: And which terms I'm not abiding when I put the link below?

Visit http://edo.webmaster.am/gtranslate for Pro version.

RE: "So why you insisted to remove the link from the project's page in that case?" -- because it's not clear that your product abides by the terms of the GPL, or that it relates to your module at all (in which case it's just spam).

Please describe what someone gets when they buy the pro version.

Is it based on Drupal?

What does the person actually purchase?

Where does this code come from?

And how does it relate to the module you have on d.o?

Now it is already clear that it is not based on Drupal code it is written on pure PHP.

GTranslate and GTranslate Pro are compared side by side in http://edo.webmaster.am/gtranslate page.

The purpose of GTranslate and GTranslate Pro is the same, but they are different in their implementation.

Let me know if you still think that the link in the project is spam or it doesn't abide the terms of the GPL.

Though I am not the best at it, I'd step up and answer your question about advertising for a paid service vs selling a non-GPLed and, AFAIK, closed source code (since you require IonCube to run your commercial module):
The paid service would result in the new paid features merge in the upstream code hence the resultant code is GPL as well. A commercial-and-closed-source version totally violates GPL in this respect since it's based on the GPLed code, AFAIK.

I personally didn't accept you putting a link to your pro version without any prior notice since you have shown no respect to me being the owner of the module, the idea and the original code base.

I see how great help you give the community by contributing your code but I still see you playing totally against FOSS.
I'd recommend you advertise about your commercial module anywhere but not through a d.o contributed module that lacks few features from the commercial version.

By the way, I have a question for you which is inspired by what happened to Linus Torvalds with the BitKeeper folks:
How would you react when you receive a patch under your d.o module's issue queue and the patch introduces all the features you sell in your commercial version?
You would have to either: a) drop your commercial version. b) drop the community patch.
Would you go for option a?

If your answer is yes, please drop your CVS account and your commercial version because I will immediately code these features on top of your GPLed code you committed to Google Translate couple days ago.

Omar, I did respect you by sending an apologize letter for causing trouble by making changes without letting you know, and asked you to respond as soon as you can, however it took you more than 5 days and still I don't have a response. It shows that you don't care about your module and shows that you have abandoned it. You were able to modify only the part which you don't agree with, but you deleted everything I have added in the description.

My commercial version is not based on any GPL code, so I do have a right to have it non GPL licensed, since it's completely different.
If people advertise their companies and services in d.o I do have a right to do the same and it is not against any rules.

If you can code that features and make a patch on GTranslate project I'll accept it.

I'm not going to drop my CVS account and close the project, since I have a right to keep them and I don't violate any rules.

Still I don't have response from bonobo, I ask him to respond to #29.

however it took you more than 5 days and still I don't have a response. It shows that you don't care about your module and shows that you have abandoned it.

I abandon my when I abandon it not when I don't have time to discuss naming and advertising.
And by the way, I didn't delete your modifications, I just shown the old version of the module's page until we're done with our discussion.

You forgot to say "in the opportune spaces".

Of course not on the d.o front page. It's evident what I'd meant when I told that.

And by the way, I didn't delete your modifications, I just shown the old version of the module's page until we're done with our discussion.

It doesn't matter how you removed them, the result is that they are disappeared and I have no response.

I stumbled on this issue in the global tracker and it seems to me this should be tossed over to the webmaster's queue. There's a legal issue there that maybe someone from the DA can step in and answer and there's also the question of the duplicate project. Normally we discourage but allow duplicate projects but, in this case, it seems as though edo888 was told he couldn't have an account just to dupe a project and then went ahead and did it anyway, which is a breach of trust. I think it would be good to get some other maintainer's opinions in this, especially where that non GPL code is concerned so moving the issue.

Michelle

I want to clarify that I haven't duplicated anything. I guess by saying duplicate you mean 2 projects which have the same purpose, in this case the purpose is to automatically translate a web page using Google Translate service.

In response to Michelle's request for additional feedback:

1. Regarding the GPL: http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7 makes it quite clear that all distributed drupal modules must be GPL. Period. If the other version is truly standalone, then I don't believe there's a problem there.

2. it definitely seems as if the project was created solely as a form of advertisement since the link was removed from the co-maintained project. Michelle is right-- we discourage outright forks, but don't forbid them. However, I have previously seen cvs requests solely for a fork be denied so there is precedent there. IMO we need to come up with a clear and evenly enforceable policy on this. Nevertheless, being told no to the dupe, it was definitely unacceptable, sneaky, and disingenuous to go ahead and create a fork anyway without discussion or a new request for clarification before doing so.

3. Having made the acceptable behavior clear to the maintainer in question, I don't believe cvs access should be blocked atm. The project releases should be removed, the project page updated to point to the original project, and the maintainer should be free to continue to contribute if so desired. if there are any more problems or 'misunderstandings' then cvs access should be revoked.

Due to the insane google juice of drupal.org and the increasing popularity of drupal, I fear that scammers and spammers will spend increasing amounts of effort at obtaining free drupal.org advertising. It's already started to appear in planet posts, themes, and modules. We really need to write a crystal clear page that describes the dos and donts (much like the license page) so we can avoid these kinds of protracted discussions.

IMO we should also have a method for people to pay (proceeds going to the drupal association) for ads if they really want them.

just my $0.02 worth-- ymmv.

As far as I know, the non-gpl code is a non-issue because it was just a link from the project page and that link has been removed - AND - it was a link to a page whose content was unclear and made it seem like it was a Drupal module when in fact it isn't (and that has also been updated on the page).

I agree on the concern about the a potentially incorrect motivation behind applying for a cvs account but it wouldn't be the first time someone did it and we allow folks to do stuff like this all the time.

So, if this issue is about the linking to non-gpl version then it should be marked fixed.

If it's really about the duplication then it should also be marked fixed because we have no specific rules against duplication.

If it's about something else then we should update the title.

I hope you do not remove Gtranslate, because as of dec 5th 2009 GTranslate is working on my site, whereas Google Translate Links is not appearing at all.

As I see this issue was fixed based on the fact that the advertising link was removed. But oddly enough the link was back 8 hours after greggles comment..
http://drupal.org/node/644592/revisions/view/796626/805412
This project page is a clear advert, and I would not support such pages on d.o

Closing old issues. Please re-open if needed.