Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.
By eldarin on
Currently the description of Drupal Licensing is limited to the following passage in About Drupal » Background » Mission of the Handbook pages:
Open source. Drupal is based on the open source philosophy of collaborative free software development and is licensed unde the GPL. Drupal is itself open source and builds on and supports other open source projects. Specifically, Drupal is coded in the open source scripting language PHP and supports as primary data sources the open source database formats MySQL and Postgresql.
Given this weekend's discussions and earlier remarks there seems to be a need for "official clarification".
The information should:
- be more easily available, perhaps immediately under the About Drupal section. (currently it's a little hidden)
- reflect Drupal's licensing stance and the FSF GPL implications on modifying Drupal. (free to modify, bound under GPL if distributing modificated Drupal)
- describe how Drupal can be used - for non-free and free services. (it's usable for any kind)
- instruct on how proprietary Drupal modules can be used. (similar to modified Drupal system)
- instruct specifically on licensing for contributed/distributed modules and many themes alike. (equals modified Drupal)
- instruct specifically on contributing modules/themes with additional GPL-compatible licenses. (clarified on FSF GPL list of such licenses)
- clarify the selling of Drupal installations, including specialized modules and themes. (designers can sell, copyright on modifications might be best served under client's care)
- explain how some themes can be free from licensing. (CSS only, Xtemplate, some Smarty, PHPTemplate themes are freely licensable as they include no running/interfacing code to GPLed Drupal)
These points are what I can think of right now, but there are certainly more - and more to come ...
:-)
Comments
Some recent discussions ...
.. touching on the subject of Drupal and module licensing:
These threads have all raised valid questions which are not readily explained by any "official" drupal.org information.
In addition to the information listed in the initial post, some further points might be:
Well, it is certainly a need for a refresher on GPL for many, and it probably will fend off many questions, doubts and misunderstandings as more and more discover Drupal - whether they do so for a living or not.
edit: the first post should read "in the Handbook pages". The GPL is cited within the Drupal distribution package itself.
Roles
Lawyers do not write Drupal code.
Drupal coders do not give legal advice.
If the GPL FAQ, especially this point is not enough, then turn to your lawyer.
I feel an itch to close these topics.
--
Read my developer blog on Drupal4hu.
--
Drupal development: making the world better, one patch at a time. | A bedroom without a teddy is like a face without a smile.
Questions will pop every now and then
I think it's better to clarify for the users who have questions.
IF there is some official explanation, then a lot of misunderstandings on the part of users, designers or developers can really help them along their projects to implement Drupal sites, themes, modules or patches.
Avoiding the questions won't help anyone.
GPL FAQ
The only answer you will ever get is: see the GPL FAQ.
i FOUND ANSWERS TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS IN THAT FAQ. HAVE YOU READ IT??
--
Read my developer blog on Drupal4hu.
--
Drupal development: making the world better, one patch at a time. | A bedroom without a teddy is like a face without a smile.
hehe
So while I don't let this one lie sleeping, would you then - as a minimum - agree to a suggestion of a handbook referral to the GPL FAQ for any questions people might have ?
That way any unnecessary bloating of the handbook with cruft can still be avoided.
;-)
Some clarifications could be useful
Hi,
I think most people will ask themselves (just like me) whether they can make money off a website developed in Drupal (clearly yes) and whether their "idea", the content they generate will be subject to GPL (i.e. can somebody actually just copy their site and replicate their business model bit by bit and be protected by GPL?).
The section in the GPL that covers this is
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
The last sentence is extremely important. I am an experienced developer on non-web platforms, so I could tell what happens there. But I have no idea (yet) how Drupal works. Does the content I generate/publish with Drupal contain Drupal code itself? It certainly does not contain php, but it might contain art, themes, HTML etc. Deciding whether the end product would be subject to GPL as well might be a tough case even in court.
But the important question is this: why are authors afraid of? I am talking about someone like myself, who has a business idea and plans on using Drupal to create a site. Well, if you are afraid that someone might steal your exact design and start a parallel business, you are probably protected, as the design itself, although implemented on GPL software, is usually copyrightable. Is it really possible to protect it? No, there are many many Facebook-like applications appearing everywhere, and all you can do is hope that the network effect works. Or that they are not in your main market. But that is a completely different topic than GPL+Drupal.
So, in a reader's opinion who is not a lawyer, you should be just fine developing the next Facebook on Drupal. If someone will get pissed at you is Facebook, not Drupal. If your idea does not infringe on Facebook in any way but creates a completely new product based on a different idea (let's call it Facebook2) and someone copies your website exactly (although it is not possible, but let's say they do it somehow) and publishes an identical site name LegBook2 and starts getting users, and claims that the GPL allows them to do so legally, you are most probably protected by the copyright law. The GPL would have almost no say in this.
What if you develop a Drupal module specific to your site that actually brings most of the money in? Like some module that does this thing, it looks at the user's phone number and based on that delivers them custom grocery info, and this is your killer app? While the module itself will probably be subject to the GPL, the business idea should be protected by copyright. How does this work? Yes, everyone can copy and modify and use the module you have, but not implement the same business idea. So in a sense it is unusable. But you have to be very careful here, this is a very tricky case. On the other hand, they might as well just start the exact same business in China and there is nothing you can do about it.
My own piece of advice is to start your business and not worry about this issue. If your site really becomes so big that you are worried about it, by now you can probably afford to hire a team of devs and re-write your site in whatever non-GPL framework you want to, and nobody can claim that, after you switch the site to the new code, you are subject to GPL. Then again, China is always kinda far.
Cheers
I agree
I agree. Given the international composition of this community, even if we wanted to explain the various intricacies of the GPL, this would be impossible because copyright law is different across nations.
So what can we explain?
Further questioning ..
.. in these threads:
Are we seeing something similar to a clique, or are these really legitimate questions raised which would help the Drupal community in having resolved ?
I think it's inevitable, and should be clear about how anyone can offer commercial services including module developement - just like the ones on the exclusive listing on Drupal services listing on drupal.org.
Replying "I don't know" or "RTFM" is practically akin to FUD-tactics in these matters, I think.
Commercialization is unavoidable in any circumstances. Just like the Summer of Code projects where a select group of developers were paid by Google to contribute modules or code patches. It's nice to tout "google paid for this", but Google benefits economically (albeit sometimes indirectly) on every new website actively deployed out there.
Commercial and licensing questions
There are a lot of questions, and lawyers are not the creme de la creme of intelligence quotients, so that some answers are possible and perfectly legal to provide.
Most Drupal core developers have commercial Drupal services on the side, and when others ask questions they should be greeted with something else than RTFM, "contact your lawyer" or "we don't know".
Most CMSes have a section on this, why couldn't there be one here ? It's obviously needed.
There's no need to have covert services or projects in search of fame, free lunches or an exclusive customer base. GPL means it's free for all. Period. Spelling that out in more certain terms is a welcome to others making the holy buck off Drupal work and community - be it the forum contents or contributed work. $$$ seems to beat clout no matter how hard one tries.
Read the GPL FAQ first
It's been already here and elsewhere that developers wanting to offer Drupal commercial services should read the GPL FAQ. Just as any small business owner wanting to build a a physical structure for their new business should learn about permitting and zoning laws by either researching themselves or hiring professionals, developers should have a sound business plan based upon their knowledge of the business they are getting in to: the licensing implications of the GPL. The GPL FAQ is the best resource for this other than consulting a lawyer.
As an academic researcher interested in intellectual property and open source (I am not a coder), I want to say that this recommedation--read the GPL FAQ or consult legal counsel--as being offered by developers on drupal.org *is* a best practice recommendation, not some attempt--as you have implied--to maintain some dominance over offering Drupal consulting services. In fact, I think that implication is in pretty poor taste.
That all being said, I am the Drupal documentation coordinator. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? If you would like to create a documentation issue for a detailed GPL licensing page and offer a draft for review, the documentation team can take a look at it and consider it for posting into the handbook. However, I suspect that much of what you will say will merely duplicate the GPL FAQ. If this is the case, it would make sense to let the FSF maintain their GPL FAQ and we can link to it, rather than creating another handbook page for maintenance which mirrors the FSF's resources.
Drupal legal services
Maybe there is a need to put a section on Drupal services;
-Drupal Legal Services
If 'legal' issues arise and some pro's might be needed for some users
You are right.
I am requesting a duplication of some of what is written in the FSF GPL FAQ, or at least a section linking to the FAQ in the Drupal handbook pages.
In my opinion, there is no denying that the current handbook GPL information is both buried too deep and could be improved by either linking and/or complementing with a gentle introduction. I.e see my original post on top of this thread.
The reason some duplication could be useful is that you could specifically stat what is ok to do with regards to Drupal code. Some always are confused about the general case (i.e any GPL code) and the specific case (i.e Drupal code) and making the complete connection.
The last few days of posting on the subjects clearly show so. A bigger concern is perhaps that many who answer about the GPL, do so with lots of misinformation and wrong interpretations - showing they either do not recollect the basic answers or have not bothered to read the GPL or the answering FAQ about the work they participate in.
;-)
When I paraphrase, or interpret someones flawed answer in a more extreme light, it's to get them to understand they are wrong and/or that some change could be needed; hence my starting of this thread.
A linking in the handbook section would help a lot of people in the right direction and avoid the numerous cases of veteran Drupal people giving incorrect answers. Now, for someone unsure about what direction to go, being told to contact their lawyer for something which is not a complex legal question is ridiculous, when they could easily and in a friendly manner be guided in the right direction - be that the Drupal handbook or the GPL FAQ.
The best solution would of course involve a friendly introduction to the basic uncomplicated facts of the GPL with regards to Drupal, but a second best solution would be a straight linking to the FSF GPL FAQ in the appropriate handbook section (and prominently located). Not everyone are aware of the FAQ, but informing about it is pretty sensitive since so many misconceptions have been formed. Avoiding these misconceptions and possibly offensive answers with "official and friendly information" is warranted. That is what one should expect in a friendly Drupal community, and is part of socially accepted and expected behavior. That I need to repeat it ad infinitum should be unnecessary.
;-)
are you a lawyer?
In your legal opinion.
Now about the license location. It is on the project page and is included with every Drupal core and/or module downloaded from drupal.org GPL is a requirement for modules and themes available from Drupal.orgs CVS.
Right here on the project download page is the link for Read License. This is included in EVERY download.
That you repeat ad infintium by spamming and cross posting in every forum merely makes more work for active volunteers while you spread fear, uncertaintanty and doubt.
cel has offered.. if YOU want this to happen, then YOU can make a page which we, the docs team will review and consider for inclusion. Dries has already stated his opinion. Drupal is GPL. I think the license information is in to many places already.
-sp
---------
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
In my opinion ..
.. saying with regards to interpreting the GPL that you are safe offering services, but perhaps not selling code - and saying you are free to run Drupal on one server - that's pretty incorrect to me, yes. The ill tempered answers on some of these matters are just symptomatic of what's wrong too ...
;-)
Besides, this matter has been a combination of things - like attitudes from some posters towards newcomers who have felt intimidated - not the first time around. Some are more hot tempered than others, and that is also reflected on drupal.org.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't need to be one to be able to read simple things. Why ?
A good addendum to the current GPL information in the handbook would be something friendly and uncomplicated like:
Now, that's an improvement in my eyes, and could be linked to the drupal.org/drupal-services alias, the GPL FAQ and the Free Software Foundation website.
If the handbook section could be more easily found than now, it would be another welcome improvement. Then any newcomers who still asks questions could be directed to the appropriate handbook section - thus learning about the handbook and perhaps even defer a lot of question which might seem unnecessary "crufty" to some veterans.
Remember, FSF is about "free, as in free speech" not "free, as in free beer". That's one thing that many on this site has confused over and over again.
This has not been about the GPL itself, but about how newcomers and others with questions have been greeted and informed. Period.
;-)
You are safe offering
You are safe offering services (hosting oddly enoguh is a service and adding value to your service oddly enough is covered -think red hat). We don't know offering to sell modules commercially licensed with restrictive clauses so you should see a lawyer if you plan to sell modules comercially in a closed source manner that use Drupal GPL code hooks because we don't know was I believe the gist of the answer.
I do not believe that advertising in the GPL license is in anyone's best interest. It would be modifying the license.
You have made it about the GPL in many many threads. If you are now trying to make it about how new people are treated then you are confusing us and a lot of newcomers.
We get a lot of 'claims' about how new comers are treated. Do people occassionally get their feeling hurt? Yes. You know what, we try, but it will happen in a community of 30,000 registered users. You are not new. Your last number of posts have been directly about posting GPL 'issues' as you percieve them on a large number of threads. So these are what I was addressing.
I deal with a lot of the new folks. I answer a lot of questions, and try to help them through how Drupal.org works so they can make effective use of the resources here. I write handbooks articles to help reduce the number of repeat questions. I answer questions in the forums and in #drupal-support. I link to the handbook section in my sig. I have seen a significant reduction in some of the posts that people used to make. I have seen posts wehre I have a good backup and... I have a test site and am having issue X on it..... (better then I blew up my production site)
I think that new comers need more people to answer their questions. That means we need more poeple to participate inthe forums. I think we need more people helping on #drupal-support. I think we need more docuemntation. Evidently you do too. How about you take us up on that offer and write us some? All of this needs unpaid volunteers. Contributing their free time. We do not have that many people doing this.
-sp
---------
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
Sure.
It's as we all know safe to offer services - writing code and getting paid for that work. You can also safely sell the work more than one time; the GPL FAQ says so explicitly.
You can also further license your laboured code or contribution with licenses which are thought to be GPL compatible. If you want a different additional license than the ones listed as compatible, it starts to quickly get very, very complicated. Then would be the time to seek professional help, if you need the expertise.
I don't try to lessen the effort put by developers answering questions or doing other contributions (contributors in general like you put it elsewhere) - but I don't mind butting in to say how it can be improved.
Most of the bickering arises as part of the fact that very few actually read carefully what people are saying, while other misunderstandings might arise as differences in background or culture.
I have never had the need for an lawyer personally - save for a contract review one time, and don't imagine I'll really need one in the future. With my background, consulting a lawyer is not something I would do lightly as it's not something I see as a positive. Nor is it seen as a friendly gesture to be adviced to see a lawyer as the main response to a friendly inquiry, in my opinion.
Drupal embodies contributors, like you said, from all over the world. On drupal.org and elsewhere it is possible that they can get offended, like you pointed out and as I pointed out in describing electronic forums and communities in the request-for-newbie-forum-thread.
A country like the USA e.g constitues roughly 5% of the world's population, but 80% of the world's lawyers. It is sometimes described as a litigious society. That is something comletely alien to me in most respects. That's perhaps one reason that misconceptions and misunderstandings arise on this specific subject. It might be perfectly normal to tell someone "see their lawyer" and no harm ment some place, but to me and possibly others, it is not a friendly or welcome greeting.
Many of the veterans here on drupal.org has pointed out the differences in intellectual property laws between countries on the subject of the Drupal and GPL inquiries here. That's where I would not have dared to answer, because I certainly have no expertise in international IP law interpretation - or how the WTO handles these matters. I know Israel, China, Brazil, Russia have IP laws which might not be seen as "perfect" by US companies, and that these countries constantly challenge what are accepted interpretations by representatives of US interests. But that's about how far my "common knowledge" on that matter goes. Seeing how others qualify with international differences in copyright law in their responses, I was surprised because of the obvious complexity in such responses, but it was nothing that the questioning asked an opinion about.
So, I guess we can all safely agree on the goal of improving responses, documentation, code and practices - all contributions - like you accurately pointed out.
Dries and many others do a very fine job on improving and securing quality of many contributions already. I don't mind pointing out obvious misinterpretations presented to others about the GPL where I see one. Should I ? Because I'm getting kind of mixed signals on my contribution on this subject ...
;-)
PS! Beware the logical "trap" on replying, and also the pretty much catch-all in even replying. So, read carefully. Sorry ...
Documentation on drupal.org is just like code
Documentation on drupal.org is just like code. If you feel strongly enough about something, then submit a contribution for review. What's the saying I've heard on the developer's list? "Talk is cheap. Code is golden." Documentation writing on drupal.org is the same way. Everyone is always invited to submit new documentation and revisions for the handbook. There is a documentation issue section that you can use for this purpose.