Charging for phpBB MODs?

[Afterlife(69)]

Our MODs are licensed under the GNU/GPLv2 License with clearly states that we may charge for the distribution of the source code, however we cannot charge directly for the code.

So the only logical way I can think of doing this is having a "try before you buy" system, where people can freely use my MODs with the copyright in place, or pay me a small fee to have the copyright notice removed.

If they were to remove the copyright notice without my permission I could sue them on a GPL violation for stealing my source code and claiming it as their own.

The reason I am bringing this up is because phpBB3 is near and I am planning to stop all free modifications, the reason being I have no solid income and there is high demand for these phpBB3 modifications, in fact I have already done a couple of paid requests before the software has gone gold.

Anyways, what are your views on charging for MODs? Because I honestly don't see the logic in spending thousands of hours writing code for somebody else to use without getting something in return.

[drathbun]

First of all, yes, you can charge directly for the code. What you cannot do is prevent someone from paying for the code and then redistributing it themselves for free. Normally if someone pays for code they are not likely to turn around and redistribute it, but by GPL rule they can if they want to.

Nobody can force you to release code that you wrote for someone else.

I don't charge for MODs, per se, I charge for consulting. If there is a MOD that results from it, the client that paid for the MOD owns the copyright, not me. It's called "work for hire" and it's a standard practice.

[igorw]

I agree with drathbun. I also believe that you can charge for the code directly. As the GPL states that the software must remain free. That doesn't mean free of price though. The only requirement is, that everybody (everybody who has access to the code), has the same rights to modify the code, and freely distribute it - if he wants to. He doesn't have to though.

[Afterlife(69)]

[drathbun]

[Afterlife(69)]

Actually, if they were to remove the copyright notice it would be seen as a GPL violation as one of our rights as MOD authors is to force the copyright by visible, if they were to remove it that is breaking the license agreement.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Note the following: "Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included?"

It is actually the most common GPL violation.

[drathbun]

I get that you have to retain the copyright contained in the source. I was not aware of anything that required the copyright to be visible.