Gigya module project page needs to be clarified (licensing/ToS issues)

Not sure.

I didn't read the whole legalese, but I think this is ok since it doesn't talk about the code.

I am sure other module have similar "for pay" alternatives (mollom for example ;).

The agreement talks about use of their web service (for which the module is a client) not the module itself.

I think what''s on the project page http://drupal.org/project/gigya is badly worded and wrongly suggests that use of the module requires an additional license, versus use of their web service where they can obviously make whatever restriction they like.

They should fix the wording.

Please correct the project page to clarify that the paid subscription may be required to use the service - NOT to use or deploy the module (since all code there is GPL)

pwolanin - you are right.

to clarify - The module is free and GPL. Use of the module itself doesn't require an additional license.
However, the Gigya module serves as a "proxy" to the Gigya platform which is a paid service for commercial sites (according to restrictions outlined in our Online Member agreement - http://www.gigya.com/public/content/agreement.aspx).

I will work on clearing up the language on http://drupal.org/project/gigya to reflect that.

Itamar,
The Gigya team

Itamar: thanks for taking note of this issue. Could you also clarify on the project's main page what the terms are for sites that are run by registered 501c3 nonprofits in the US?

That use case is not explicitly stated in the member agreement which you linked.

Setting to "critical" since the current wording makes it unclear whether nonprofits may use the service without purchasing a commercial license.

Moving to 6.x-2.0 branch so it will be grouped with all the other fresh issues.

Itamar, I plan to email you shortly so that I may discuss the licensing/ToS issues for my particular organization's implementation.

Hi EvanDonovan,

I checked about that and unfortunately Non-commercial does not mean non-profit.

Non-commercial refers to an activity or entity that does not in some sense involve commerce, at least relative to similar activities that do have a commercial objective or emphasis.
Because nonprofit organizations is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals, it's not eligible for a free service.

Note however that Gigya will not charge existing Drupal websites or projects that are using the module and are live or in the works today. We plan to start charge commercial sites that will start using the Gigya in the future (at some point in time, which hasn't been determined yet). Your existing project shouldn't be effected by this and would remain free.

I'm sorry that timing is a bit vague. The reason for that is that we are trying to do our best to help the community of developers that are working today on the module and have started working knowing that Gigya is free.
On the other hand, it's clear that in the future we would be charging for new commercial projects using the Gigya platform and we wanted to be able to communicate that in advance.

Evan and pwolanin,

do you think this wording will work?

"The Gigya Drupal module is open source and can be distributed freely; however,
paid subscription may be required to use the Gigya service (which the module uses) on commercial sites.
To learn more, please read our online Member Agreement at:
http://www.gigya.com/public/content/agreement.aspx.

Clients who purchase a paid subscription from Gigya, receive advanced features, full support, consulting services and a SLA. To learn more about using the Gigya Drupal module for commercial use, please contact us at"
http://www.gigya.com/public/Contact."

Itamar: I defer to pwolanin on the wording, since it is a GPL issue and I am not familiar enough with it. I will contact you via email about my organization's situation.

Hi Gigya,

I have to say I appreciate the honesty and attempt to get this module back on track. Working with the community rather than independent will really get you in touch with your user-base directly.

The following is probably best in an e-mail, but I think it is important for all people using this module to see.

Above you have stated "Note however that Gigya will not charge existing websites or projects that are live or in the works today. We plan to start charge commercial sites that will start using the Gigya in the future (at some point in time, which hasn't been determined yet). Your existing project shouldn't be effected by this and would remain free."

Nowhere else (on the front page of this module or the gigya website) does it state this. Unless we can get this in formal writing that specifically states that sites currently using Gigya prior to such and such a date will not be charged, we have no guarantee that Gigya will not change their minds. Considering there's no pricing information, clarification on what is considered 'commercial-use' or real open information on the gigya.com website, I feel incredibly uneasy using this service without having a formal agreement that current users will not be charged now nor in the future. I received a price quote for what the commercial license will be (I won't state it publicly), but if Gigya changed it's mind and decided to charge me down the road (for something i've been using for free), I wouldn't be able to afford the costs and would have to notify a whole community of users that their login's will no longer work which would then cost time and money to fix.

I think before any progress is made, there needs to be formal, clear and distinct information about who will and won't potentially be charged in the future. Without this information, I can't see myself continuing the service for my website and I would be very weary for anyone else to do so also. I would recommend that anyone concerned, contact gigya to get a price quote for a commercial license so you're not surprised what it could potentially cost if the above does not withstand.

Based upon the user agreement and terms on the module page, the commercial license isn't something taking effect in the future, but something that's already required.

Cerup,

Thanks you. I agree with your point and we discussed our policy internally.

I will change the wording on the drupal page to reflect the following:
1) Any Commercial Drupal site using the module (as defined in our online member agreement) going live after the 1st of April, should obtain a license to use the Gigya platform services.
2) The only exception to this one are sites that have been given explicit written permission from Gigya to use the Gigya Platform without the need to acquire a payed license.

Itamar,
The Gigya team

Itamar, I think that is a good first step, and I appreciate the conversations that we have had, both here and privately. However, unless I am missing something, I believe that your use of the phrase "commercial site" could still be clarified further than it is in http://www.gigya.com/public/content/agreement.aspx.

Does the generation of any earned income on a site, even if it is a site owned by a 501c3 nonprofit (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html), make the site commercial, by your definition? Furthermore, does "authentication via the services" only include Socialize logins, or also logins via a username and password (since Socialize.notifyLogin() is still called in those cases).

I ask these questions publicly, since I believe that they should be clarified publicly, both for the benefit of the community, and ultimately for your benefit, so that people will be able to accurately calculate the costs of adopting your module and service vs. other competing services.

I also have the following suggestions to make:

* In regard to the wording of the project page, I think chx is absolutely right. The wording of the current "Licensing" section should be clarified and made more succinct. The first paragraph under "Licensing/Terms of Use" should say something like "The Gigya Drupal integration module is licensed under the GPL v2 or later. The module's code is open source and may be distributed and modified freely, under the terms of the GPL." The licensing issues in regard to the Gigya service, in distinction to the module, should be addressed in the following paragraph - separately from the module's licensing, as chx said, to make it clear that you are not adding restrictions to the GPL, as far as the module goes.
* Furthermore, if possible, you should make a page that summarizes the member agreement accurately, but in non-technical language, so that people know to what they are agreeing. Also, the points I discussed in my second paragraph above should be clarified in both the legally binding form of the member agreement, and the summary.
* Finally, you should create a page on the Gigya site that outlines clearly and briefly the pricing structure for the Gigya service. JanRain's RPX service does a great job of this (https://rpxnow.com/get).

If you are to be competitive with RPX, and other similar fourth-party integration services, I think you should make it equally easy for people to evaluate whether your service is both: 1) compatible with the aims of their site (by clarifying the commercial/non-commercial distinction, and how you count 1000 authentications), and 2) affordable for them (by stating your pricing structure explicitly on your website).

Note that I have added a parenthesis to this issue's title, since there are other things that need to be clarified on the project page, besides the licensing section. But a separate issue can be opened for those, once it is clear from the project page that the module is GPL-licensed (as it needs to be in order to be hosted in the Drupal.org CVS repository), and, additionally, that cerup's concerns about pricing information for the service are clarified, both on the project page and on the Gigya website.

I think a speedy resolution to this issue will have great public relations benefits for you.

Itamar,

Thanks for the clarifications that you have made on this point, both publicly and privately. Do you have any idea of a timeframe in which the project page will be updated to reflect something like the wording chx suggested?

I've posted the revised language to the front page. Comments welcome.

"The Gigya Drupal module is licensed under GPL v2."

is wrong - see above. All code in CVS must be under the same license as Drupal core. It's GPLv2+ (or simply say "the same as Drupal core").

thanks for the suggestion -- change has been made

I am confused. Will I be charged after April 1 if I have Gigya on my "small commercial" site? When I started to use Gigya several months ago I under stood that gigya had a business module to generate income from advertising that we (site owners) could optional participate in; what happened to this approach? Should I disable Gigya so I don't get some $$$$$ charge I cant afford?

I have been getting good advice from people in the Drupal community about my question #19 directly (e-mailed to me) and all the advice says do not use gigya because of the unknown $$/year. Thank you everyone for your input. I have disabled gigya on my site.

I just called Gigya to see what the actual cost is.

First ip/url and upto 1k monthly visitors/subscribers- Free
First ip/url and over 1000 monthly visitors/subscribers- $15,000.
For each additional url it is $5k.

further detail here:
http://drupal.org/node/769272

To further clarify the license issue, Gigya should place the dollar amount for it's service on the project page. If it tells us that there is a limit of 1000 people, people should be aware of the $15,000 charged for users above that point also.

I am not sure if there is an official policy on Drupal.org for full disclosure, but I know that it seems to be an inform one.

Thanks.

I am setting this issue back to "fixed", since I believe it is Gigya's decision whether to disclose pricing information for their service on Drupal.org. The module hosted on this site is free, so it does not fall afoul of any Drupal.org policies, as chx and pwolanin have noted.

This is a very poor and misleading policy. Not being honest and straight forward about costs, even if they are only approximations or an example, would save some people, me among them, time and therefore money. I went through the Aquia webinar on the topic thinking I would learn about the costs. Such a was of time and I think Aquia should not have promoted it without adequate discloser. My opinion of these sorts of marketing tactics is very low.

This is a very poor and misleading policy. Not being honest and straight forward about costs, even if they are only approximations or an example, would save some people, me among them, time and therefore money. I went through the Aquia webinar on the topic thinking I would learn about the costs. Such a was of time and I think Aquia should not have promoted it without adequate discloser. My opinion of these sorts of marketing tactics is very low.

did you do a typo?

First ip/url and over 1000 monthly visitors/subscribers- $15,000.

that would mean a minimum of 15$ income from each user to break even.