Most of the drupal modules that I've looked into packaging do not have any license preamble in the code. They contain a copy of the GPLv2 license in LICENSE.txt. As such, I've marked them as GPLv2. According to http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q4 modules on the drupal.org cvs site should be GPLv2+, and I've had requests to update the license tag: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640830#c3
However, without explicit mention in the text of the module code I'm hesitant to change the license tag. Help?
"OP" == Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com writes:
OP> Most of the drupal modules that I've looked into packaging do not OP> have any license preamble in the code. They contain a copy of the OP> GPLv2 license in LICENSE.txt. As such, I've marked them as GPLv2.
Shouldn't that be GPL+?
Obviously you should get clarification from upstream, but according to clause 9 of version 2 of the GPL text, you can choose any version at all:
"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version...
OP> According to http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q4 modules on the OP> drupal.org cvs site should be GPLv2+, and I've had requests to OP> update the license tag:
In the past we have referred to upstream web sites in the case that we had reasonable certainty that the web site and the code had the same author. Is that the case here?
- J<
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 04:53:31PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"OP" == Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com writes:
OP> Most of the drupal modules that I've looked into packaging do not OP> have any license preamble in the code. They contain a copy of the OP> GPLv2 license in LICENSE.txt. As such, I've marked them as GPLv2.
Shouldn't that be GPL+?
Obviously you should get clarification from upstream, but according to clause 9 of version 2 of the GPL text, you can choose any version at all:
"If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version...
OP> According to http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q4 modules on the OP> drupal.org cvs site should be GPLv2+, and I've had requests to OP> update the license tag:
In the past we have referred to upstream web sites in the case that we had reasonable certainty that the web site and the code had the same author. Is that the case here?
As the FAQ states:
"4: I want to release my work under GPL version 3 or under GPL version 2-only. Can I do so and host it on Drupal.org?
You can release your work under any GPL version 2 or later compatible license, however, you may only check it into Drupal's CVS repository if you are releasing it under the same license as Drupal itself, that is, GPL version 2 or later. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, do not check it into Drupal's CVS repository."
So if the module is carried in Drupal CVS, it *must* necessarily be licensed GPLv2+.
On 01/19/2011 07:42 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
As the FAQ states:
"4: I want to release my work under GPL version 3 or under GPL version 2-only. Can I do so and host it on Drupal.org?
You can release your work under any GPL version 2 or later compatible license, however, you may only check it into Drupal's CVS repository if you are releasing it under the same license as Drupal itself, that is, GPL version 2 or later. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, do not check it into Drupal's CVS repository."
So if the module is carried in Drupal CVS, it *must* necessarily be licensed GPLv2+.
Sorry to drag up such an old post... I'm way behind in email reading.
This caught my eye and I had to respond.
I'm no lawyer... however, doesn't the above quote from drupal make the entire codebase non-free?
For all intents and purposes... drupal is saying "use this license or get lost", which calls into question who really owns the code.
Is drupal effectively claiming ownership (and therefore licensing rights) over all of the code in their repository?
Or is this kind of arm twisting allowed by supposedly "free" licenses?
Lyos Gemini Norezel
P.S.- Sorry Paul... forgot to use "reply list" instead of "reply".
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Lyos Gemini Norezel lyos.gemininorezel@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/19/2011 07:42 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
As the FAQ states:
"4: I want to release my work under GPL version 3 or under GPL version 2-only. Can I do so and host it on Drupal.org?
You can release your work under any GPL version 2 or later compatible license, however, you may only check it into Drupal's CVS repository if you are releasing it under the same license as Drupal itself, that is, GPL version 2 or later. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, do not check it into Drupal's CVS repository."
So if the module is carried in Drupal CVS, it *must* necessarily be licensed GPLv2+.
Sorry to drag up such an old post... I'm way behind in email reading.
This caught my eye and I had to respond.
I'm no lawyer... however, doesn't the above quote from drupal make the entire codebase non-free?
For all intents and purposes... drupal is saying "use this license or get lost", which calls into question who really owns the code.
Is drupal effectively claiming ownership (and therefore licensing rights) over all of the code in their repository?
Or is this kind of arm twisting allowed by supposedly "free" licenses?
Lyos Gemini Norezel
P.S.- Sorry Paul... forgot to use "reply list" instead of "reply".
Not at all - nothing forces drupal to accept any submission. Many projects have coding style and license requirements. You are free to of course redistribute drupal from your own repository with code that has a gpl-compatible but non GPL2 or GPL2+ license. Drupal, I imagine, is doing this to dramatically reduce the burden of licensing compliance. (And having seen projects similar to drupal struggle with this for months on end I can certainly understand that reasoning.)
Fedora puts similar (albeit far wider) restrictions on what you can commit to Fedora's SCM - it's all contained on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing.
On Feb 12, 2011 5:24 AM, "Lyos Gemini Norezel" lyos.gemininorezel@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/19/2011 07:42 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
As the FAQ states:
"4: I want to release my work under GPL version 3 or under GPL version 2-only. Can I do so and host it on Drupal.org?
You can release your work under any GPL version 2 or later compatible license, however, you may only check it into Drupal's CVS repository if you are releasing it under the same license as Drupal itself, that is, GPL version 2 or later. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, do not check it into Drupal's CVS repository."
So if the module is carried in Drupal CVS, it *must* necessarily be licensed GPLv2+.
Sorry to drag up such an old post... I'm way behind in email reading.
This caught my eye and I had to respond.
I'm no lawyer... however, doesn't the above quote from drupal make the
entire codebase non-free?
For all intents and purposes... drupal is saying "use this license or get
lost", which calls into question who really owns the code.
Is drupal effectively claiming ownership (and therefore licensing rights)
over all of the code in their repository?
Or is this kind of arm twisting allowed by supposedly "free" licenses?
Lyos Gemini Norezel
P.S.- Sorry Paul... forgot to use "reply list" instead of "reply".
No problem... Here's what I wrote earlier. IANAL and all that, here's my two cents.
I think there's a central misunderstanding in the questions: GPLv2+ licensing has no effect on "who owns the code." The copyright on the code belongs to its authors. GPLv2+ licensing is a copyright license that among other purposes extends freedom to recipients to use, modify, and redistribute. This licensing does not change the ownership of the copyright on the code.
The Drupal project requires GPLv2+ licensing for code to be carried in Drupal's project CVS. The requirement ensures the Drupal project and its contributors retain all the rights granted by the GPLv2+, such as the right to redistribute and modify the code.
The requirement also ensures that any code checked into CVS is licensed for use with all the GPLv2+ licensed code in the repository. For instance, it's possible (and in fact common practice) for people to download Drupal's Core, plus a selection of modules, and then provide that along with pre-configured options as a turnkey solution which can be redistributed, marketed, sold, and supported as a business model.
I don't know a reason why a project's requirement for specific free licenses should be viewed as strong-arming. After all, both parties have something to gain from the relationship of having code in Drupal's CVS system. Furthermore, the Drupal project doesn't prohibit an author from multiple licensing of code (as long as the additional licensing doesn't invalidate the licensing under GPLv2+, presumably). For instance, jQuery is found in Drupal CVS, which is dual-licensed MIT/GPLv2.
There is no free software project I know of that doesn't have some sort of licensing requirement. Without a requirement of some sort, a project could too easily suffer the tainting effects of improperly licensed code.
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:16:03AM -0500, Paul Frields wrote: [re Drupal GPLv2+ policy]
I don't know a reason why a project's requirement for specific free licenses should be viewed as strong-arming. After all, both parties have something to gain from the relationship of having code in Drupal's CVS system. Furthermore, the Drupal project doesn't prohibit an author from multiple licensing of code (as long as the additional licensing doesn't invalidate the licensing under GPLv2+, presumably). For instance, jQuery is found in Drupal CVS, which is dual-licensed MIT/GPLv2.
One legitimate criticism one could raise about the Drupal policy is why it doesn't also permit GPLv2+-compatible code (that is not explicitly GPLv2+-licensed) in its repositories. GPL compatibility is a somewhat fragile but important customary doctrine that I'd like to see projects give support to through policies of this sort. However, I see that Drupal has addressed this very issue here: http://drupal.org/node/66113 and the explanation seems quite rational to me, even if not's the policy I'd support if I were involved in the project.
- RF
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:16:03AM -0500, Paul Frields wrote: [re Drupal GPLv2+ policy]
I don't know a reason why a project's requirement for specific free licenses should be viewed as strong-arming. After all, both parties have something to gain from the relationship of having code in Drupal's CVS system. Furthermore, the Drupal project doesn't prohibit an author from multiple licensing of code (as long as the additional licensing doesn't invalidate the licensing under GPLv2+, presumably). For instance, jQuery is found in Drupal CVS, which is dual-licensed MIT/GPLv2.
One legitimate criticism one could raise about the Drupal policy is why it doesn't also permit GPLv2+-compatible code (that is not explicitly GPLv2+-licensed) in its repositories. GPL compatibility is a somewhat fragile but important customary doctrine that I'd like to see projects give support to through policies of this sort. However, I see that Drupal has addressed this very issue here: http://drupal.org/node/66113 and the explanation seems quite rational to me, even if not's the policy I'd support if I were involved in the project.
Thanks for that link Richard; it was useful. I do have to say that, regardless of any differences from Fedora's approach to licensing that may exist, one of the things I'm fairly impressed with in the Drupal community is the amount of readily available documentation on their licensing choices and policies.
Paul
-
David Nalley -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Lyos Gemini Norezel -
Orion Poplawski -
Paul W. Frields -
Richard Fontana