Understanding GNL Public License with Opencart

BuGFiX wrote:But if you want to develop some paid modules and don't want to allow your customers to give it for free (throwing into the trash all your hard work), you are free to do so.

Completely wrong.

LGPL gives you as the developer rights to not release the source code of your commercial proprietary application if you used 3rd party library which is released under LGPL license.

Even if OC is released under LGPL, you still can not force another license for your modules. You would only be allowed to link to 3rd party libraries released under LGPL, and not be required to release your source code, but since PHP is not compiled language, when you sell a module you are actually selling a PHP script (which itself is source code).

LGPL does not change GPL parts about distribution, and thus can not forbid users to do what they want with your code if you give it to them - which you have to, as said above.

just realized this thread is titled "GNL" license

Hahahah, General Neanderthal License

Yes, the license does say you have the freedom to modify and redistribute as "free software". But, what you're missing is that, again, "free software" relates to freedom, not price (as stated in the GPL).

If the original "free software" was a commercial product, your redistribution would also have to be "commercial", at least to the extent that the original developer gets "paid" for each copy of the modified work that you redistribute. While this is not explicit in the license, it is implied by the "commercial" nature of the software. After all, you can only redistribute under the same terms and conditions as which you got it, which includes price.

You may add an extra charge for your modifications if you wish to, but the original developer should still get the commercial price of that software from any subsequent redistribution.

@Fido-X

While I would definitely love that is the case, unfortunately, it's not...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... RequireFee
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... tyToPublic

Excerpt from the GPL:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
0. Definitions.

“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.

“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations.

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.

A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

The FAQs would appear to contradict what the license actually states.

No, the FAQs do not in any way contradict the actual license.

The part you quoted is a definition of what "propagate" means in the rest of the text.

In short, users agree by the license that they will not remove the license itself, nor any copyright notices put on it by the original author, meaning they can not claim ownership of the work.

By giving them the license, we are giving them permission to further modify and distribute the work.


Section 4

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

Section 10

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

Even if we patent work released under GNU GPL, we can not stop others to earn from it, nor we can impose any fees on them.

actually its a DWFYWWI license.

http://myshadowself.com/do-what-the-fuc ... e-licence/

One of the best license names I've seen

Coulnd't agree more, D said it all

dizarter wrote:Section 4

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

Yes, but the Terms & Conditions, define "conveying" as a form of propagation. Propagation is defined as including distribution and, according to the Terms & Conditions, propagation requires permission.

This would imply that any "conveying" or "distribution" (ie. propagation), without the permission of the original author (as stated in the Terms & Conditions), would be contrary to the terms of the license.

fido-x wrote: Yes, but the Terms & Conditions, define "conveying" as a form of propagation. Propagation is defined as including distribution and, according to the Terms & Conditions, propagation requires permission.

Terms & Conditions are the whole document (preamble, point 0., point 1., ...)

Point 0. Definitions, contains mere definitions of what each term means, there is nothing in that part about permissions.

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law , except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

Above definition does not state that users do not have the permission to "propagate" content, it just defines what "propagation" means. Point of that sentence is that if users, by propagating content "without permission", do anything that would result in any copyright infringements then they would be held liable for those infringements.

The point here is that by giving our users GNU GPL License we are giving them permission to do what ever they want with content, provided they leave this same License and all other copyright notices intact.

If they, however, claim the authorship of the work, then there would be copyright infringement, and they would be held liable.

And, here we come back to the first point of this topic - I can not apply any license to my module which would be contradictory to GNU GPL license (and such is any license which negates the rights to further modify and propagate the work). If I do provide such a license it can simply be ignored on the basis that my module, which uses OC API and requires OC to run, is a derivative work of OpenCart, which itself is released under GNU GPL.

Direct example:

A person chooses to sell a module they purchased from me, and he/she leaves everything as is (license (meaning original OC license, not my license), all the inline code comments and copyright notices, etc) then he/she is not breaking any copyrights and is not liable for anything. I can not do anything about the fact they are giving the module away, because I am indirectly giving them GNU GPL license, which allows them to do so.

If he/she claims authorship of that module, and I find that out, I can then sue them on the basis of copyright infringement (provided I can prove the module is my original work).

dizarter wrote:

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law , except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

Above definition does not state that users do not have the permission to "propagate" content, it just defines what "propagation" means. Point of that sentence is that if users, by propagating content "without permission", do anything that would result in any copyright infringements then they would be held liable for those infringements.

Yes, but distribution (or propagation) without permission is an infringement of copyright law.

dizarter wrote:The point here is that by giving our users GNU GPL License we are giving them permission to do what ever they want with content, provided they leave this same License and all other copyright notices intact.

True. The GPL states that you can use the work for commercial or non-commercial purposes, that you can modify for your own use and that you may re-distribute (or propagate) that modified work. BUT, the bit you're overlooking is that this re-distribution (or propagation) is still subject to the definition of propagation (which requires permission), as stated in the Terms & Conditions item 0.

dizarter wrote:Direct example:

A person chooses to sell a module they purchased from me, and he/she leaves everything as is (license (meaning original OC license, not my license), all the inline code comments and copyright notices, etc) then he/she is not breaking any copyrights and is not liable for anything...

Actually, the fact that they are selling, makes them liable, and removes any liability from you. This also means you don't have to provide any support for that "propagated" work either, especially if they're doing it without permission.

What is the exact license of opencart?

Yes, but distribution (or propagation) without permission is an infringement of copyright law.

Not with GPL. GPL is a license, not a contract.

Quite contrary, as the matter of fact - it is enforcing distribution without requiring any permissions, except providing the license

We also can not make proprietary modules. If we could, it would be a different story.

True. The GPL states that you can use the work for commercial or non-commercial purposes, that you can modify for your own use and that you may re-distribute (or propagate) that modified work.

Which exact line in the GPL license made you think that users can modify for their own use only?

So much condradiction in the way you think about this. How can anyone use the work for commercial purpose, while, at the same time, be modifying it for his own use? He is not going to sell that work to himself, is he?

the bit you're overlooking is that this re-distribution (or propagation) is still subject to the definition of propagation (which requires permission)

Again, definition of propagation we are referring to does not say anything about permission to propagate.

Let's think this way - I sell someone my module (which must be released under GPL, because OC is GPL) and I do not give them permission to sell that module, unless they provide me with some funds. Does this sound OK? From the moral point of view, it does, because why should anyone earn from hundreds of hours of work I've put into that, while I don't receive anything? But, from the legal point of view, I have to abide to GPL, which allows them to do so.

On the other side, we all end up earning from MySQL while not paying anything to SUN, so everything is back to normal

Actually, the fact that they are selling, makes them liable, and removes any liability from you.

Not the fact that they are selling, but the GPL license itself

I really am not trying to deprecate your point of view, but you seem not willing to accept that it is how it is.

I was holding up from saying this, but a friend of mine had problem with a Drupal module he coded for one of his clients. He had taken them to court because they sold that module to the 3rd party. Long story short, he ended having to pay court taxes. GPL allowed them to do that.

I have read the entire discussion and I still have some doubts: what I want to do is to get the latest opencart version and create my own product by modifying it and adding my code, my personalizations, my logo, some free extentions to it and so on. The new product still remains in GPL licence but:

- should I (re)distrubuite my product under GPL only if someone ask me about it?
- should I have to indicate that the product is based on opencart?
- can I sell my product to my customers?

Thanks in advance.

ledzgio wrote:I have read the entire discussion and I still have some doubts: what I want to do is to get the latest opencart version and create my own product by modifying it and adding my code, my personalizations, my logo, some free extentions to it and so on. The new product still remains in GPL licence but:

- should I (re)distrubuite my product under GPL only if someone ask me about it?
- should I have to indicate that the product is based on opencart?
- can I sell my product to my customers?

Thanks in advance.

Yes, II have read "almost" the entire discussion, and still has almost no clue ...

- download OC source
- change at least one character
- sell it with "implementation" to customer for $ 1000.

Do I need after that post "my modified" source somewhere public? Am I obligated?

If you want to dive into this topic with a different example look at Linux different flavors such as redhat (Linux) and centos (linux). Linux was created redhat modified it. Redhat is a paid version of linux and one of the benefits of using redhat is you get support when you buy it. when you are green it is invaluable resource. There will always be new folks starting out or companies who may have the skill wanting that extra support when needed. But if you want a redhat version and do not want to pay you can use the compiled distributed code under Centos. So in turn you can use any or all parts of opencart but will need to make available your modified source code. You could make a mod for opencart and not put in any of their code in it. Personally the key in IT is "Support". That what most folks want and that where the bread and butter is. You can charge for it or part in the cost of the mod. I would have no fear in creating a mod or a shopping cart based off of opencart for a client but you will just have to give create. In the music world we saw Frank Zappa do this all the time with the the movies and animation. He fully gave credit on the product jacket but also gave full credit when he discussed his art in interviews. Some time going as far as giving phone # to folks you help to create the finished product....This is an example of giving credit where credit is due.. Frank Zappa music is not open source to be freely distributed. I want to make sure I explain that that. Do not steal or misrepresent other people work as you own. ... I would follow that model give credit where credit is due no matter if it is GNU or not. Do not be afraid to use GNU code just give credit.... Base your business model on, you are the best at what you do and not be greedy. This will free you in coming up with some great software... Greed will stifle your creativity and you will not produce your best work if you look at how to beat the GNU agreement to make a buck. If you think you have that 10 million dollar idea write it from scratch. If you cannot and want to use a GNU code then give credit and share so other can eat and raise their families... The other folks did. Look at Daniel he charges I think 10% to the mod developers per sale if the extension are on opencart.com that is his model. But you could sell you mod somewhere else losing the 100,000 or users group. You choose... Find a model that works for you and create. Tomorrow never comes if you do not start today...

you have to give full credit on your agreement and not hide the fact you used other code based off the GNU. If any one asks for the code you have to give it to them. Remember it does not have to be compiled code just source code...

Take a look at the agreement section....
http://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0