3 ms·

I know of a popular project using Github Sponsors as a payment method to provide premium-only features on GPL code, giving access to a private repo. These featu

I know of a popular project using Github Sponsors as a payment method to provide premium-only features on GPL code, giving access to a private repo. These features are most definitely derivative work. Is this breaking any rules of Github/Sponsors? To make matters worse, I create an account to contact the project and request full source code, but Github immediately flags the account from public view. I submit support tickets, but it always shows I have no tickets open and the account is still flagged. So, I can't even request the source code or report a likely violation to the project, and Github is taking a cut.

remram 4y ago
Does that break the terms of the GPL license? The only requirement is that people getting the software also get the source code, there is no requirement to make any derivative publicly available...
- throwawayKiwi9 4y ago
  Derivative works are specifically mentioned in GPL. There are websites that distribute paid WordPress plugins for free and Automaticc was only able to go after them for trademark violations. This issue is probably more complex, but the project I'm dealing with definitely clarifies that this private repository is the same project with additional features enabled, and not a separate project. Perhaps these are just warning signs of the project maintainers, telling me to not contribute and find alternatives. If they are using a platform that does not allow me to even make my request and continue pulling in profits because of it, that surely seems like an issue. But IANAL. I just find it ironic and moronic that a code repository business is fascillitating this problem.
  - remram 4y ago
    Here is an exact excerpt from the license text: > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: (...) The only requirement is that people who get the product (not the public, not the owners of the work it's based on, not anybody else) are also able to get the source code under the same license. You can totally have a private fork, you just: * Have to give the source to the people who get the binaries (for example by giving people access to the private fork when they pay) * Those sources have to be under the GPL too (which means in particular that those people can put it in a public repo if they want but don't owe anybody anything) So the situation you describe is NOT a violation, unless anyone is withholding source code, changing to an incompatible license, or going after people exercising the rights they were granted by the license.
    - throwawayKiwi9 4y ago
      Yikes, now I feel dumb. I actually never knew you could sell private access to GPL code, but that makes freedom-respecting sense. Thank you! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...

remram 4y ago

Does that break the terms of the GPL license? The only requirement is that people getting the software also get the source code, there is no requirement to make any derivative publicly available...

throwawayKiwi9 4y ago
Derivative works are specifically mentioned in GPL. There are websites that distribute paid WordPress plugins for free and Automaticc was only able to go after them for trademark violations. This issue is probably more complex, but the project I'm dealing with definitely clarifies that this private repository is the same project with additional features enabled, and not a separate project. Perhaps these are just warning signs of the project maintainers, telling me to not contribute and find alternatives. If they are using a platform that does not allow me to even make my request and continue pulling in profits because of it, that surely seems like an issue. But IANAL. I just find it ironic and moronic that a code repository business is fascillitating this problem.
- remram 4y ago
  Here is an exact excerpt from the license text: > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: (...) The only requirement is that people who get the product (not the public, not the owners of the work it's based on, not anybody else) are also able to get the source code under the same license. You can totally have a private fork, you just: * Have to give the source to the people who get the binaries (for example by giving people access to the private fork when they pay) * Those sources have to be under the GPL too (which means in particular that those people can put it in a public repo if they want but don't owe anybody anything) So the situation you describe is NOT a violation, unless anyone is withholding source code, changing to an incompatible license, or going after people exercising the rights they were granted by the license.
  - throwawayKiwi9 4y ago
    Yikes, now I feel dumb. I actually never knew you could sell private access to GPL code, but that makes freedom-respecting sense. Thank you! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...