I have read the (lively) discussion on topic at "Need clarification on the license" and at "CVS: Update FAQ.txt to clarify the impact of GPL on HTML output", and a description of basic licenses (GPL, LPGL, BSD, etc...) in this book:
Book Review | Open Source for the Enterprise: Managing Risks - Reaping Rewards
I am a lawyer (although not practicing in this field). I am not a programmer nor a developer. I am also working on introducing Drupal in the federal government (Canada). I have no ideological preferences for licensing (or not) code under GPL or other licenses.
I am, however, interested in upfront licensing clarity from the perspective of final clients (and not only developers); including corporate / large institutional clients. I do not think that licensing, when it comes to Drupal, is clear. I am offering to help - but I need your advice on what I could best contribute, how and where.
One example: I intent to have developed a Government of Canada Common Look & Feel Drupal Theme. Only federal government web sites can use such a theme. Now, how would that work? I had already intended to release the theme back to the community, when completed; but that does not mean anyone can use it to launch what would appear to be a governmental web site... I think (but I'm not sure) that distinction has been made in the above quoted FAQ.txt update - I would have to look into it.
Another example: suppose that a large commercial vendor is interested in developing a very specialized Drupal module, likely to be used only by large corporations and governments; and that such a module has years (and millions) of IP behind it; on a principled level, why not let such modules be developed and sold under a different license - albeit not on this site (I understand that code contributed here should be licensed under GPL)? Is there a realistic fear that allowing such specialized modules to be developed would cripple the Drupal community? I am just trying to understand the fear here - I am not advocating a change...
In my last example, I not only think, but know that allowing the development of such specialized modules would promote the adoption of Drupal in corporate settings. Why? Because specialized needs could be accomodated with Drupal and complementary, specialized and - yes - proprietary modules that no Drupal programmer could realistically develop on their own.
Thoughts and advice?
Comments
Some quick thoughts
Regarding your theme, here are some thoughts.
You can contribute the theme code and templates back to the community *without* releasing rights to the graphics, logos, and so on that your site uses. Those are not 'code' in any way, and aren't affected by the GPL inheritance clauses. Don't have time to dive into more details right now, but that's one aspect you might want to keep in mind.
--
Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
--
Eaton — Partner at Autogram
Licensing...
The way I see it, a license doesn't guarantee that someone will not use it as the license states. And by putting, "You may not use this theme to impersonate a governmental website", it draws attention to the fact that it was used there in the first place.
If someone wanted to impersonate a government website, they could do it whether the license says it's ok or not. If they are impersonating a website, then couldn't you press charges/sue them no matter what the license for the theme is?
I think there has been previous discussion on allowing more licenses, which would all be some sort of open source license, but I don't know what the conclusion was on that.
--
Bradlis7.com | Churchofchristnet
Nailed It
To answer your question:
In general, if content (code, text, book, whatever) is licensed for specific uses and a user complies with terms of the license in how they use / exploit content; you can hardly "sue" them because they're operating within the parameters of the license.
The problem I want to prevent (it may be non existent as per the first reply above) is Drupal users thinking they can use a Government of Canada Theme because the theme is licensed under GPL.
patrick
Confusion?
The simple way to prevent that is to not distribute the theme beyond the government web sites. If no one gets the theme, no one can use it.
What aspects of the theme are you wanting to share with the community? Code techniques? Specific templates? It might be worth isolating the useful bits and contributing them as snippets. In my experience, the content of the site and the styling (images, CSS work, etc) contribute far more to the perception of 'identity' than just the HTML layout and code. It's perfectly reasonable to strip that stuff out, or release a 'neutered' version that has layout and templating, but no identifying graphics or color schemes to cause confusion with the Government sites...
Am I making any sense?
--
Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
--
Eaton — Partner at Autogram
Thanks
Yes - that's useful. Part of the problem is me (!), as I'm not exactly sure what is involved in a Drupal Theme. That pretty much settles it for the GC CL&F Theme - thanks!
patrick
The GPL is simple.
Firstly, IANAL. But, there is a FAQ for the GPL at the Free Software Foundation which will answer many of these questions, including several sections on modules.
But in essence the license is simple: If you do not abide by the GPL's terms and conditions you do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works.
The key is the copy or distribute part. You may use GPL code and modify it as you see fit, as long either don't distribute it or as you provide your client with the source then you have fufilled your end of the bargain.
As the FAQ states under the heading Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?:
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization."
Eaton has a good writeup on this on his blog, called Drupal and the GPL (as I understand it) and I think he is spot on for the most part.
---
Code0range: Drink Your Juice
Simplicity vs. Shared Understanding and Use Case Scenarios
Hi Grohk,
What you write is what I understand of the GPL. Although I am not required to release the modified version, I would certainly want to make it available to other Government of Canada Departments and Agencies; are you saying that the whole of Government of Canada can be considered as one organization of the purposes of the GPL and the CL&F Drupal Theme? (don't worry - I won't take your answer as legal advice and I'll do my homework on this later) ;-)
Also - my offer for help consisted in conveying more clearly to Drupal Developers and users the do's and don'ts associated with GPL. I quickly tried to find a topic on Drupal Source code and Modules Copyright & Licensing issues but could not find one. I am offering to write one. But to do this, I need:
patrick
may be a moot question
"are you saying that the whole of Government of Canada can be considered as one organization of the purposes of the GPL and the CL&F Drupal Theme?"
IANAL, but I do a lot a research on open source (I'm an academic). If i am understanding you correctly, I'm not sure it really matters since you are never required to publicly release a modified version. The stipulation is that modified versions should have the GPL license and the source code included. So in this case, you could just give (or sell) each agency a GPL licensed version whether or not the whole government is considered one organization. The agency is then the owner of that copy you give them. Now even though the GPL would permit them to distribute it far and wide, their own federal policies would dictate otherwise (based upon what you have said about the unique theme). However, thanks to the GPL, they would be able to give it to other agencies without violating their own policies about unique site designs.
Furthermore, the GPL provides rights to the copy owner--the person you give or sell it to--the licensee (read the GPL to see what I mean). So if the agency is the licensee, then an individual in that agency not acting on the agencies behalf who decided to distribute it on their own would be essentially stealing the copy, in the same way that if the agency owned a music cd and a staff member decided to make MP3's and give to their friend. The GPL would not be valid for them.
-----
Charlie Lowe | cyberdash
Tips for posting to the Drupal forums
So, if I understand you
So, if I understand you correctly, it would be ok to "privately release" (as opposed to a public release) a drupal version packaged with a specific theme? By privately releasing I mean, for example, on a governmental intranet...
Gee - there's no way around it; I'll have to do the reading of those licenses myself! ;-)
patrick
G2TT | IMN | Slaw
Yep.
I am not a lawyer (obviously!) but in my repeated forays into GPL FAQs, the license itself, and the competing interperetations, things boil down to this:
Program code that interoperates directly with Drupal is considered a 'derivative work' and must be licensed under the GPL. In the case of Drupal modules, that line is pretty straightforward. In the case of Drupal themes, the 'program code' is often a series of template files that generates the basic HTML code for a page's layout. Those template files, because they are code that interoperates directly with Drupal, are derivative work. Images, CSS style sheets, logos, and so on however are not 'program code' and don't have to be licensed under the GPL.
Also, just because something is covered by the GPL doesn't mean that you must give it away. It only means that once you give it to someone else, you can't control what THEY do with it. Thus, if it's only distributed to the Canadian Government -- and the Canadian Government doesn't decide to hand it out to random people -- you're golden.
Obviously, there are additional complexities. But it's a general framework for understanding how GPL issues tend to play out in Drupal.
--
Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
--
Eaton — Partner at Autogram
Also
And, if they don't want other peoples sites to impersonate theirs but they still distribute the theme to others - I would say that the issue is no longer your problem anyway ;)
They should understand that while the GPL gives them full rights to redistribute it themselves, they don't have to and there is (or will be) a policy stating why it wouldn't be a good idea to so to avoid other people impersonating a government website.
The GPL was designed to protect the rights of the users of a particular piece of software, not people that don't use that software. It's the same way drupal.org doesn't have to give away the source to its BlueBeach theme because they haven't distributed it to anyone. The theme would still be GPLed, but as they are the only users they don't have to give the source to anyone.
--
Anton
New to Drupal? | Forum posting tips | Troubleshooting FAQ
Example Knowledge Base built using Drupal
Good point!
The GPL was designed to give maximum flexibility to the people who HAVE the software, not to ensure that everyone who wants the software gets to use it.
--
Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
--
Eaton — Partner at Autogram
I'd appreciate if you coul
I'd appreciate if you coul dfind the time to read them yourself, especially the GPL. Many people seem to think that reading the GPL is not a prerequisite to talking about it, which usually does make a discussion quite useless.
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services
Don't worry, I will
Don't worry, I will; there is no way I could write a primer on GPL and related IP issues without carefully reviewing the licenses. Raising some of the issues here allows me to better plan the structure and content of this primer. ;-)
patrick
G2TT | IMN | Slaw
I think most developers
I think most developers would appreciate some summary of what the GPL means for Drupal, especially since there a are a few controversial points discussed again and again. Also, other software projects don't seem to agree with the interpretation we put forward.
You could post drafts to the developers' list and after it is finished into the handbook at an appropriate place. You could also could contact the documentation team.
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services
That's the kind of guidance
Hi killes -
That's the kind of guidance I was looking for. By developer's list and documentation team, do you mean the mailing list?
I plan to install the Liquid Wiki Module soon on http://gov20.info (an association I'm launching in June); I may simply use that to draft a "drupal specific Copyright & Licensing primer" - and a wiki seems to be the easiest way to do this.
patrick
G2TT | IMN | Slaw
Yes, I was referring to the
Yes, I was referring to the mailing lists. Please keep us posted on your progress. I realise that until you've heard all lawyers nothing is final, but your offer is better than anything we got so far.
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services
GPL stuff
The way I would interpret the situation:
As long as you are the one doing the distributing to the govt depts and they don't distribute it further themselves, there shouldn't be any problem with the GPL if the government keeps the theme to itself. You only have to supply the source to the people you supplied the software to. After all a Drupal theme is PHP - there is no giving them the theme without giving them the source code anyway.
A recent report for the NZ government came to that conclusion for all govt depts at least. The NZ and Canadian governments are probably similar enough that this would also apply - of course you'll need a legal opinion of that.
From: http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-source-legal2/chapter3.html
So depending on the structure - they may not even be distributing it.
--
Anton
New to Drupal? | Forum posting tips | Troubleshooting FAQ
Example Knowledge Base built using Drupal
Wow!
THAT is really useful (for my context) - thanks!! duly noted and bookmarked.
patrick
G2TT | IMN | Slaw
The main purpose of GPL
The main purpose of GPL is to force an end to IP "owners" exercising their rights at the expense of others. The whole idea is to force people who want to use software licenced under GPL to licence their software under GPL. This is often referred to as the "viral nature" of the GPL.
This feature is partly responsible for the success of the GPL and it is a Noble cause.
A GPL-based content management system may turn out to be too expensive for a corporate or government environment, because your developers are not permitted to licence anything. You must have the right to give away every single line of code (the jury is still out on images and media if they are integrated into the code such as in some templates) before you may use it on your site. You will probably need to write everything from scratch in a white-room, by staff who are 100% employees of the company. So it may cost you $10,000 to recreate something that you could have licenced for $50.
This is an effect of the GPL that the original author of a work may choose to leave or or fix before it is released into open source. It is nearly impossible to fix once a product is released. There are key members of the Drupal community who think it is a Good Thing and will never allow it to be fixed.
You may find it more economical to use something with IP protection like Interwoven (http://www.interwoven.com/), dual licencing like Enfold Systems (http://www.enfoldsystems.com/) or with a modified free licence that allows you to have rights-restricted components like Mambo (http://www.mamboserver.com/).
This is not a recommendation of any of the above. They are presented only as examples of safer licences from a corporate point of view.
Well...
In the interest of fairness, that requires a very liberal definition of the word "jury." To date, not a single person in the Drupal developer community has claimed that images and media (like CSS files) in themes are covered by the GPL 'derivative works' clause. I realize that you're concerned about this, but please be honest: there is consensus on this point and you are the lone dissenter.
Drupal's license -- in my opinion -- could certainly use some clarifying points about third-party library integration and so on. I'd love to see this thread further that goal. From past discussions, though, I think it's fair to say that you dislike the GPL and tend to take the strictest and most damaging possible reading of it, even stricter than the strong GPL advocates inside the Drupal development community.
--
Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
--
Eaton — Partner at Autogram
For the record
To be clear, I do not "dislike" the GPL per se, I simply am not fanatic in the belief that it is the appropriate licence all of the time. I admit that I am frustrated that I have been barred from contributing to Drupal on the grounds that I believe (as does the FSF) that the GPL may not be 100% appropriate for everything I write.
The expert and legal opinions that I have received have pointed out that it is a grey area based on the particular way Drupal is written (html in core and the use of @import). I totally supported the clarifications you proposed.
The main purpose of GPL is to force an end to IP "owners" . . .
That's a very Stallmanesque, idealized perspective and definitely the "corporate point of view." But there is a less "noble" view point as well, that the GPL (or copyleft) facilitates the best software production process.
-----
Charlie Lowe | cyberdash
Tips for posting to the Drupal forums
Conversely...
It is very Linusesque to go all pragmatic and use the argument that the reason the GPL is good is because it fosters a particular process. That may be, but the main thrust of purpose remains: It is about code being Free as in Freedom -- for all the developers and the all users.
We all benefit from the GPL.
---
Code0range: Drink Your Juice
"We all benefit from the GPL"
Right (although I wouldn't say all "Linusesque") because of the belief that free as in freedom best facilitates the commons based peer production (CBPP) model of knowledge production, not to " force an end to IP 'owners' exercising their rights at the expense of others" as the other poster mentioned. There is no doubt that there are "distinct moral, social and civic value in the source code of software being legally available to anyone in perpetuity" as Bollier has pointed out. From that arises the altrusim which inspires the Free Software movement. This is important, of course, for gaining participation and support of open source software. But I choose, and I think the best perspective from understanding why the GPL is important, is the ecomonics of CBPP (thinking of Yochai Benkler if not read from a Stallman perspective ). Sharing of code through the GPL, preventing the exclusive ownership of it, is the means to an end.
What's interesting about all of this is the common complaint that free software is a noble cause of forcing others to give up their IP rights it so hypocritical when it comes from corporations. After all, work for a corporation, and they "own" all of your IP rights in most circumstances. With open source/Drupal, everyone shares, and everyone benefits.
-----
Charlie Lowe | cyberdash
Tips for posting to the Drupal forums
Another example: suppose
There is no fear. If it is a module, it is a derivative work, which would fall under the GPL. *IF* if was distributed, the entity to which it was distributed would have the right to re-distribute, etc. (covered nicely elsewhere in this thread).
If it has years of dev/millions of IP, I suspect you are talking about existing software. You can make a Drupal module, which would be covered by the GPL, which used standard methods to talk to the remote software -- e.g. XML-RPC, etc. The software remains under whatever license it is, and the Drupal interface module is GPL, but the interface module isn't much good without the software.
So, no fear, that's just the way the GPL works, and current opinion is that all modules are derivative works (they can't function without Drupal core).
Thanks very much for looking into this, Patrick. Your help is appreciated.
This is interesting
Hi Boris -
This is interesting. I read elsewhere something similar about TinyMCE and to go-between drupal module licensed under GPL but not the TinyMCE project itself. Do I understand correctly that what makes this possible is the fact that:
You're right that I am bringing up this issue for a specific reason; I know a company that specializes in the "Natural Language Search" query niche, they typically cater to lawyers and large institutional clients and corporations. What they offer is way beyond what Google can provide in terms of results accuracy and relevancy. When I talked to their CEO last week, I recommended to look into the cost / benefits of developing a drupal module because I think drupal will be increasingly used by institutional clients. Obviously they would not want to release the source code behind the natural language search query algorithms, so a go-between drupal module interfacing between drupal and their technology might work...
patrick
G2TT | IMN | Slaw
Well, actually, TinyMCE is
Well, actually, TinyMCE is *also* covered under the GPL -- see the moxiecode site. We don't keep a copy of the TinyMCE libraries here on Drupal.org, because it means that this local copy has to be kept up to date and version controlled, when the "master" copy is available directly from the Moxiecode site. The policy is that (large) external libraries be downloaded separately.
And yes, from what you state, an interface module shouldn't be a problem at all.
I don't think that this
I don't think that this would be a problem. If you assume that the company in question will either write the module themselves or pay somebody to do it for them, then the resulting module is their IP.
That means, they can release it under whatever licence(s) they fancy. So they can release it under GPL (they need to because of Drupal integration) and another license which integrates well with whatever license they use elsewhere. The CiviCRM module is an example of this, it is released both under GPL and AGPL by the original author.
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services
--
Drupal services
My Drupal services