My attempt to put my rather large (unreleased) module as a GPL project on http://gna.org failed, I received a message on how the LICENSE.txt (as Drupal 4.4.2 distributes it) is too old and named wrong (I used Drupal's LICENSE.txt). One other error at least for drupal source code files seems to be the absence of correct GPL text on top of EACH source code related file.

For my module I need to make a few minor modifications to drupal code, so I have to redistribute all drupal code along with my module for it to be working code.

At least for Drupal 4.4.2, this means basically the following:
LICENSE.txt is outdated! This file should be replaced with this file: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt and that file should be called COPYING

Also,

I fail to see source code files (*.inc *.module) with a GPL notice and _copyright holder_ mentioned.

I paste some directions I received:

Additional instructions are available from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.

The GPL FAQ explains why these procedures must be followed.  To learn
why a copy of the GPL must be included with every copy of the code,
for example, go to
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyMustIInclude

Can all these indications please be updated? I cannot release my own module code under the GPL via http://gna.org until Drupal has it's own GPL indications up-to-date, I am required to redistribute my module with all slightly modified Drupal code.

Comments

Steven’s picture

"You should also include a copy of the license itself somewhere in the distribution of your program. In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING; it should be the plain ASCII text version of the license. Use either the text version of the GPL or the text version Lesser GPL."

The filename is a suggestion, not a requirement, as far as I can see.

lapurd’s picture

The filename is a suggestion, not a requirement, as far as I can see.

Let me say this again, the Drupal file, whatever it's name is, is outdated!

That and there are no GPL indicatations in the sourcefiles. I don't want to be lame with all this, but currently I cannot register my module at gna.org.

If 'Drupal' thinks I am wrong, that means gnu.org is wrong.

sepeck’s picture

Not really. A writer/developer can use any license or license version they choose. :) Also, it is a suggestion and gna.org seems to think it is a requirement. They seem to be limiting and restricting an authors freedom here.

You wrote a module. You are free to use any license in any format you choose. gna.org is free to impose any restrictions they choose too. They choose to be very restrictive about what they allow on their site. They are limiting a developers choice in doing this. :) There are alternative sites (such as Source Forge) that are not nearly as restrictive. The existing license is GPL. Granted an older version of GPL, so you are free to update it if you wish.

All that said, if you feel that it is a problem, then file a bug report against core and it will be accepted/rejected by the Drupal developers as they choose.

-Steven Peck
---------
Test site, always start with a test site.
Drupal Best Practices Guide

lapurd’s picture

First of all, bug reported: http://drupal.org/node/view/9224

But 'sepeck' you say this: Not really. A writer/developer can use any license or license version they choose.

WHERE do I mention choosing any license, license version, or being forced about any license type? Really, what does it actually have to do with all this? It is totally unrelated to the point. My point is only that the file LICENSE.txt is outdated and that seemingly copyright notices in the source code files are missing, this prevents registering Drupal core/modules code on CVS service sites.

You wrote a module. You are free to use any license in any format you choose. gna.org is free to impose any restrictions they choose too. They choose to be very restrictive about what they allow on their site. They are limiting a developers choice in doing this.

Again, what is your point? My free choice was to use the GPL and register my module basically anywhere, only because at least according to gna.org the source code indications are incomplete or wrong. Look if I choose to host the module on Sourceforge, they would rightfully 'complain' the same way. This has nothing to do with 'limiting a developers choice'. The current GPL indications in Drupal disable ANY developer using ANY license to host their project on either gna.org, sourceforge.org, etc. And I AM talking about a module which requires all of Drupal code and it's modules to be redistributed with it, because the module requires slight changes to Drupal code, else the module would not be working code.

That said, bug reported.