By ishpal on

Hi all,

I had a query regarding the licensing issues with Drpal (and hence with all GPL web application).
If I take drupal and modify the source code for myself. Then run drupal as a service and make cash with the web application.
Do I or my company have to release the source code as well, as the web application is released to the public ?
If yes, can I ask anyone else who has built applications on top of drupal for the source code ?

Thanks,
Ishpal.

Comments

killes@www.drop.org’s picture

killes@www.drop.org commented

If you would, you would discover that this is not a problem. You'd only have to distribute your version of the software's source code if you would distribute it. And this copies have to be distributed unter the GPL as well.

At least that is my interpretation of the GPL, IANAL.

--
Drupal services
My Drupal services

matt-1’s picture

matt-1 commented

AFAIK (IANAL) if you modify GPL'ed source and use it, that's your business. If you then release that software for others to use, then you must do so using a GPL-compatible license. If a modification to GPL'ed software has never been released, then one cannot demand that it be released. Only if it is used in, or is itself released to the public.

I don't believe web application infrastructure software (e.g., Drupal, PHP) is considered released just because the web application is accessible via a browser. In other words, you could hack Apache, Perl, SlashCode and MySQL to make a totally revolutionary web application, but you wouldn't have to necessarily release the source code. What you couldn't do is make available (e.g., sell) your new application to others and release only the compiled binaries. Nor could you prohibit others from copying it.

matt-1’s picture

matt-1 commented

Only if it is used in, or is itself released to the public.

That should read:

Only if it is used in something (e.g., TiVo) that is, or is itself, released to the public.

I forgot a few words there.

killes@www.drop.org’s picture

killes@www.drop.org commented

The GPL requires you to release changed GPL'ed software under the GPL again, not just a "GPL-compatible" licence.

--
Drupal services
My Drupal services

Anonymous’s picture

(not verified) commented

But what if i, as an example, code a drupal module. The original Drupal Code remains untouched. I could charge the customer for the module and for Drupal installation, not for ther drupal-code itself.
Would it be legal to sell it and not gplify it?

greetings

Marc

Schoonzie’s picture

Schoonzie commented

I am interested in this as well. If I created a module from scratch and sold that, would I have to release it under the GPL?
What about themes that I develop, if i use the PHPTemplate engine - would I still be able to hold copyright for the images in the theme?

Thanks

adrian’s picture

adrian commented

Here's the situation .. I have a client interested in using drupal as a supllementary
system to a system I have written that is a 'shrink wrapped' package meant for corporate intranets.

Basically it is installed on a server (headless, dedicated, running linux) in a few minutes by flashing the disk , set up to use DHCP and then dropped onto the client's existing intranet.

The application is a whole lot more complex than that , but I am personally of the opinion that that does not constitute 'distribution' of the software , as the box is still my clients property and the user will never be given the oppertunity to install his own working (or even broken) version of the software, lest he cracks the server and does so illegally.

I just wanted you guys' opinion on this subject .. as more input would help me and my client feel safer about investing in drupal.

al’s picture

al commented
  • You are allowed to install GPL software on a machine which people pay for access to. For example, many people sell PHP/Apache hosting. These are both GPL'd products.
  • You are allowed to take GPL code, muck about with the source, extend it, etc. and keep everything in house. E.g. you can take Drupal, add a module to it, and use that module on your own company web site without contributing it back to the community.
  • You are not allowed to take GPL software and use any part of it in an application that people pay for. You can extend it, release the changes back into the community, and charge for distribution and support. Many Linux distributions do this, for example.
  • You may install Drupal alongside commercial software on a server which you then charge for. This is no different than people who sell server appliances with proprietry software on them, running under Linux (which has many GNU GPL-licensed tools).
  • You may not take Drupal, recode some of it, and then charge people for it. The GPL is often called viral - it spreads to any code that links to GPL'd code. A while back, people wanted to be able to license libraries under more flexible terms, so that commercial software could use the library, provided that if they extended the library, they committed the changes back to the community. The folks at GNU came up with the LGPL (library/lesser GNU Public License). Drupal doesn't come under this.
  • Basically, you can't plug GPL software into proprietry commercial software. The only way you can do that is to create an interface between them, which abstracts away from the code. That way, you can write a Drupal module/patch that can talk XML-RPC to your_app, and you can add an XML-RPC module to your_app so that the two can communicate. This doesn't violate the GPL, provided you publish the drupal end of it.

Hope that helps.

--
Al Maw
almaw.com

Anonymous’s picture

(not verified) commented

When in doubt, refer to the license itself: the GPL license. Also, the GPL FAQ is very useful.

I have to address a few points here:

You are allowed to install GPL software on a machine which people pay for access to.

Of course; the GPL says nothing about paid access. A copyleft license is designed to protect the users' freedom to "use the software for any purpse". You can charge as much as you like, provided you comply with the terms of the license (which are mainly concerned with access to the source).

For example, many people sell PHP/Apache hosting. These are both GPL'd products.

Wrong - neither Apache nor PHP are released under the GPL. They are both released under BSD style licenses; consult the licence for Apache and PHP and see for yourself.

You are allowed to take GPL code, muck about with the source, extend it, etc. and keep everything in house. E.g. you can take Drupal, add a module to it, and use that module on your own company web site without contributing it back to the community.

Yes, provided you do not distribute the code outside your organisation.

You are not allowed to take GPL software and use any part of it in an application that people pay for.

Rubbish! People pay for "Free Software" all the time - for example RedHat Linux. In fact, selling GPL software is encouraged. And incorporating GPL code in software people pay for is ok too - provided the license is respected. The only thing you cannot do is restrict the users' freedoms.

You can extend it, release the changes back into the community, and charge for distribution and support. Many Linux distributions do this, for example.

Sure, fine.

You may install Drupal alongside commercial software on a server which you then charge for. This is no different than people who sell server appliances with proprietry software on them, running under Linux (which has many GNU GPL-licensed tools).

Sure; the GPL can run on the same box as proprietary code just fine.

You may not take Drupal, recode some of it, and then charge people for it.

Again, rubbish. The GPL does not prevent you from charging money for Free Software! Provided you distribute the source of your modified version and generally comply with the GPL, you can charge $1,000,000 if you want.

The GPL is often called viral - it spreads to any code that links to GPL'd code.

I wish people would stop repepating this - it is nonsense. A virus is an organism that invades a host and uses the host's resources to replicate itself. The GPL is not at all like this. GPL'ed code is quite simply incompatible with proprietary code. You have to make a conscious decision to use somebody else's code, and when you do, you must ensure the license is compatible. This is the case with Free/Open code, and it is the case with proprietary code also. If it is not compatible, you simply cannot use the code without being in violation of the license and thus copyright law.

The GPL itself cannot "infect" your code - you must make a conscious decision to use it; your code is either compatible or not, and if not, you may not use it.

A while back, people wanted to be able to license libraries under more flexible terms, so that commercial software could use the library, provided that if they extended the library, they committed the changes back to the community. The folks at GNU came up with the LGPL (library/lesser GNU Public License). Drupal doesn't come under this.

True.

Basically, you can't plug GPL software into proprietry commercial software.

True.

The only way you can do that is to create an interface between them, which abstracts away from the code. That way, you can write a Drupal module/patch that can talk XML-RPC to your_app, and you can add an XML-RPC module to your_app so that the two can communicate. This doesn't violate the GPL, provided you publish the drupal end of it.

This is sometimes a grey area, but provided the coupling is loose as you describe above, and there is no runtime dependence on the internal mechanisms of the GPLed code, it is generally considered compliant.

killes@www.drop.org’s picture

killes@www.drop.org commented

Actually, neither PHP nor Apache are released under the GPL. They both have their own Open Source licences.

--
Drupal services
My Drupal services

ax’s picture

ax commented

below (couldn't resist ;))

killes@www.drop.org’s picture

killes@www.drop.org commented

Well, this wouldn't have happened if it had been an e-mail.

--
Drupal services
My Drupal services