Add copyright notice to at least index.php

Please remove the "any later version" clause.

pwolain: the links in the handbook link off to a generic URL on a remote site. This generic URL has been updated to refer to GPL v3.0. It does not mean, however, that Drupal, which has been around for far longer than GPL v3.0, is actually GPL 3 - it just means that the remote site has changed the content. Download any copy of Drupal 5 or Drupal 4.7, and you'll see that the distributed LICENSE.txt (both in Drupal, and all contrib modules) refers to GPL 2, not 3.

Drupal uses "GPL 2" and not "GPL 2 or later versions". When I first chose the license, I made it "GPL 2 only" -- see LICENSE.txt.

Dries stated that his intentions were GPL v2 only and he did state this before GPL v3 was there:

Because Drupal's license, the General Public License 2 (GPL 2)

in http://buytaert.net/long-live-the-web-services-loophole . Also, I stated that I do not like the GPL v3 -- I might be a fool or misinformed but still. So no, you can't use Drupal under GPL v3.

pwolanin: I don't see the need to get legal advice in this matter. Drupal's LICENSE.txt doesn't say, and never has said in its history in CVS, or later. It does, however, say Version 2 on line 4 of the current revision.

If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version"

(from the text you, pwolanin, quoted (markup mine))
Drupal core code never stated that any later version of the GPL would apply to it, and as such, it goes by default that it doesn't.

In addition, Dries and chx both object to having their code released under GPLv3, and even if all the rest of the contributors of Drupal through the ages were rounded up and gave their yes, I'm fairly confident that the portion of code owing to the brain (and finger) exercises of Dries and chx amount to a large enough amount that it would be non-trivial to sort out their code. (And then, if you add to that that Dries wrote the very core of what became Drupal, which means, by the viral nature of the GPL, that all the derivatives of this original code also has to be pruned... and suddenly you're left with possibly one or two lines of PHP, without any real value.)

Attached a patch specifying version 2 and without opening up for later versions.
Should the link to the GPL be changed to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html perhaps?

Link changed per the request of killes.

Great, thanks.

The disparity here is that:

* pwolanin only accepts "specification" of the license if a Drupal /source file/ says so.
* Dries and company believe specification happened by shipping a LICENSE.txt indicating 2.0 (I agree).
* Said LICENSE.txt says that the "safest way for specifying, not "only", is to include a note in each source file.

pwolanin - I'm trying to see your side of the argument (and to argue for you, to others) so you have to try and see mine (also Dries, et. all) too -- otherwise, we're just going to run around in circles, as you're repeating the same arguments you've said before. As I said above, YOU consider specification of a license version to be a specific (or all) Drupal source file containing the exacting version number of the GPL. This is where the basis of your argument comes from - this lack of specification in any Drupal source file. This is considered the "safest" approach, according to the LICENSE.txt.

However, Dries, myself, et. al, consider shipping the LICENSE.txt, which clearly specifies Version 2.0 in the header, as indication of this specificity. This is not considered the "safest" approach, according to the LICENSE.txt, but the LICENSE.txt doesn't forbid us from doing this, or intending this. This is where you're not meeting us. The LICENSE.txt says that the source file modification is the /safest/ bet, not the /only/ bet. In the case of Drupal, and Dries' /intent/, the shipping of a LICENSE.txt that states Version 2.0 (and not "any later version") in the header, is the specification of which license Drupal falls under.

Lines 65-66 of LICENSE.txt state:

64 : 	  	  	 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
65 : 	  	  	a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
66 : 	  	  	under the terms of this General Public License.

So, I'm adding "beta-breaker:" to the title -- this issue must, IMHO, be resolved before a beta ships. Given the absence of such a notice, one can make a very cogent argument that the license does not apply. Witness this very issue.

On a quick perusal of www.gnu.org, I did find some oblique references to licensing fonts under the GPL through including a license statement along with the font files. In all other instances the license contemplates attachment through either adding a copyright statement, exclusion of warranty and pointers to licensing information in the source of the program, and/or displaying that same information through a splash screen or text output if one is working with an interactive program.

I think pwolanin's latest patch does the trick of providing the information needed in index.php. To be extra careful, it might not hurt to distill this down to one or two sentences to be included in EVERY source file as LICENSE.txt suggests. ("...attach them to the start of each source file...")

Following hours of digging here is what I see

• Dries never mentioned until his blogpost in 2006 that he specifically wanted GPL v2. I checked handbook pages (even on drop.org from archive.org), http://drupal.org/node/30708 , mailing list posts -- nothing. Everything says GPL not GPL v2. He might have wanted GPL v2 but if he put that into writing it's extremely hard to find.
• I read up on GPL v3 and the released version does not contain the restrictions I found unacceptable, so consider me OK with GPL v3.

And finally, as the GPL v2 almost begins with

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

Actually we do not have such a notice. We do ship a GPL v2 text alongside Drupal but whether that consitutes such a notice is not really likely. The whole situation is extremely hairy.

Now, pwolanin's code agrees with the above findings -- it does not state a version number. Whether this notice can get in or not is clearly Dries' decision but we have an issue status asking for his decision so I set to that.

I just wanted to note that if LICENSE.txt doesn't apply, all that is left is plain copyright law. Which means no distribution, etc. If one agrees to distribute and work on the code under the terms of LICENSE.txt, those terms are what applies. If one doesn't recognise any license for this, all that is left is copyright law. Just a little reminder of another reason I find that this really shouldn't need to be discussed this much. But oh well. (Btw, I also don't mind using v2+, I just don't see this as a possibility here.)

But let's hear Dries' comment(s).

I did a quick review of WordPress and Joomla practices this morning.

WordPress

• Does not include a copyright notice, exclusion of warranty statement or pointer to the GPL license in index.php.
• Does not include a copyright notice, exclusion of warranty statement or pointer to the GPL license in every source file, as suggested by LICENSE.txt.
• Does include a license statement in some files, where, presumably, other programs (with similar or compatible licensing) have been incorporated into WordPress. (Examples: TinyMCE, jQuery, class-phpmailer.php, class-pop3.php, class-smtp.php)
• Does include a license.txt in the root directory, stating GPL Version 2 (essentially the same text as Drupal includes in LICENSE.txt).
• Does include a readme.html file in the root directory which includes the line "WordPress is released under the GPL (see license.txt)." with links to license.txt.

Joomla

• Does include a header in index.php containing:
  

  * @copyright Copyright (C) 2005 Open Source Matters. All rights reserved.
  * @license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU/GPL, see LICENSE.php
  * Joomla! is free software. This version may have been modified pursuant
  * to the GNU General Public License, and as distributed it includes or
  * is derivative of works licensed under the GNU General Public License or
  * other free or open source software licenses.
  * See COPYRIGHT.php for copyright notices and details.
  

• Does include this same header at the top of every source file, or at least, includes it in every php and css file I checked.
• Does include a LICENSE.txt in the root directory, stating GPL Version 2 (essentially the same text as Drupal includes in LICENSE.txt).
• Does include a COPYRIGHT.txt in the root directory, containing an extensive list of copyright holders, and a consolidated list of the copyright and licensing notices from included or derivative works included within Joomla. (Examples: phpMailer, TinyMCE, vcard, wz-tooltip, among many others).

I suspect it comes down to where Drupal (or Dries, in this case) wants to be on this continuum of "license expression." Merely packaging LICENSE.txt with the program, when taken with numerous other references like http://drupal.org/about, certainly imply the licensing of the program under the GPL and is probably sufficient.

Neither "imply" nor "probably" are very strong words, however.

To express that intent more forcefully, we should include this patch.

To express that intent more forcefully still, we should consider a similar header for each source file as suggested in LICENSE.txt.

One step even further might be to include a COPYRIGHT.txt restating this information, and including the copyright/licensing headers from included works like jQuery.

(Removing "Beta-blocker" from the issue title.)

I'm not too worried about this. The LICENSE.txt clearly states that Drupal is GPL 2. Not including the license snippet in every file is a deliberate choice because it's a silly performance cost for dynamically interpreted applications. I don't mind to add such a snippet to index.php though, but let's stay clear from adding it to all files.

Dries, I am so sorry but the license txt does not clearly state that. Much rather it clearly states as we quote above

If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

I was unable to unearth such a version number specification.

Since Drupal now features a proper installer, it seems fairly easy to include a license agreement in the installation process. It would make for greater clarity on this point. One could also refer to the license.txt for future reference.

Once the GPL discussion has been agreed upon, would you consider including a license agreement in the installation procedure?

chx:
Line 4 of LICENSE.txt says Version 2. There are no mentions anywhere in the source or any related files to "or [any] later [version]". Also, if Drupal isn't distributed and otherwise handled under the terms of LICENSE.txt (which, as previously demonstrated, says Version 2), it should be handled by regular copyright law.

mango:
One doesn't have to accept the license to download and use (and even modify locally) Drupal or any contributions to Drupal. The GPL doesn't have any effect until you try and distribute Drupal further, with or without changes. And if you download Drupal for distribution, you might not ever install it anywhere yourself, thus never "agreeing" to the license. All in all, I'd find that it would just be another (mostly pointless) step in the installation process, thus slowing it (IMHO, unnecessarily) down.

Freso, sorry I can't say anything more than what I said already

If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

I'm sorry -- I'm not where I can roll a patch right now or I would have fixed this small typo myself.

I notice a typo in the word "contributors":

+Other projects' contributors
+----------------------------
+Modules, themes, and other code distributed by drupal.org and hosted in the
+drupal-contrib CVS repository are copyright by the contributiors to each
+individual project as indicated in that project's CVS log messages.
+ 

I also note that many programs simply use something like this:

....copyright by the original authors.

rather than the more detailed description above. I don't feel strongly about this either way, but I guess there could be some sort of instance where the cvs logs may not fully attribute code to the correct author.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, I believe the GNU's web site actually refers to placing license notices in a file called 'COPYING', in the few times where I've actually read an explicit mention of it. I notice that MediaWiki includes their license in a COPYING file. Personally, I think COPYRIGHT.txt makes the most sense, but I did want to mention it.

we shipped 5 versions of drupal like this, and if this issue doesn't resolve we will happily ship a 6th. downgrading priority.

I've rerolled the patch in #30, and modified it to only add a copyright notice and link to COPYRIGHT.txt and LICENSE.txt to index.php. Dries, in #21, indicated that he would prefer this approach.

I'm not too worried about this. The LICENSE.txt clearly states that Drupal is GPL 2. Not including the license snippet in every file is a deliberate choice because it's a silly performance cost for dynamically interpreted applications. I don't mind to add such a snippet to index.php though, but let's stay clear from adding it to all files.

- I modified the link in the proposed COPYRIGHT.txt to point to the GNU's page for the 2.0 version of the GPL, since a later version is now out.

- I added a "Trademark" section to COPYRIGHT.txt identical to that found on the footers of drupal.org.

- I added a "Included works" section to COPYRIGHT.txt to note included works that appear under their own copyright notice. A quick grep of core leads me to believe that the only one is jQuery, but PLEASE correct me if I am mistaken.

All this said, of course, someone should feel free to "won't fix" this issue considering that these notices, if necessary at all, can likely be much more competently handled by the Association's and Dries' legal counsel.

After thinking about this for a bit, attached is a tweaked version that changes the prior copyright language in the new file COPYRIGHT.txt to include: "...by the Drupal project contributors listed in MAINTAINERS.txt and as outlined below...".

All the people in MAINTAINERS.txt are going to be copyright holders anyway, and this (IMO) greatly strengthens the copyright language by providing a concrete list of people (with contact information) that are known to be individual copyright holders (in addition to the larger list of copyright holders to be derived from CVS commit logs and related issues). Since this file already exists and is distributed with the package, it costs us nothing to reference it.

I've committed a modified version of this patch to CVS HEAD. Thanks.