encryption question

From my understanding of the license rules, if a module interacts with zen cart code then it is covered under the GPL. Is this correct? There is a module I'd like to use but the admin side is encrypted and they don't seem too willing to provide unencrypted source code. Where does zen cart, the legal entity, stand on issues such as this? I understand the author's point about protecting their code from being passed around freely but I also don't agree since they are using GPL code base that they get for free. I like having unencrypted files so I can make changes to the logic and layout to suit our special purposes. I don't know if there is anything that can be done to get them to provide the source code.

lankeeyankee:

if a module interacts with zen cart code then it is covered under the GPL. Is this correct?

No.

The only thing that comes close to this is that modules hosted on the zencart site (plugins) must be GPL.

Cheers
RodG

I also don't agree since they are using GPL code base that they get for free
As it is encrypted, you don't know what code they are using

kobra:

As it is encrypted, you don't know what code they are using

The customer facing code isn't encrypted and it is fully involved with core code, a few core files are modified. At the least, the admin side is interacting with application_top and init classes.

lankeeyankee:

Where does zen cart, the legal entity, stand on issues such as this?
By asking "where does zen cart, the legal entity, stand?" are you asking Zen Cart (who gave you Zen Cart FOR FREE) to defend you and fight that vendor to get them to give you unencrypted code?

I'm no lawyer, but while they are non-compliant with GPL2 (in that they're interacting with other GPL2 code but changing the level of restriction applied to their code), they are not directly impinging on Zen Cart itself, so "zen cart, the legal entity" has no obligation to respond, as far as I can tell.

To force them, legally, you'd probably need a class-action lawsuit. Get enough people to serve them notice and maybe they'll cave.

Instead, why don't you plead your specific reasons with the vendor directly, state your need for unencrypted code, maybe offer to pay a premium price for that privilege (after all, you've confirmed that their goal is to profit fairly from their creative works), and create a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem.

OK, thanks for the reply, that was what I was looking for. To clarify, I wasn't asking you to do anything, either on my behalf or yours. I was curious as to what your view is and a clarification of it was impinging the license terms. Not asking for any action on your part. I have asked the vendor for the unencrypted code so I have the ability to alter it if needed. I have no problem paying people for their time and creative efforts, I purchase commercial mods and sometimes pay to have them customized if it's beyond me or I don't have the time to do it. And I have contributed $$ to the zen cart team and will continue to do so.

Thanks for the reply.

A proprietary module sitting on top of GPL code does not violate the license. If their module is 100% independent -- it does not contain any code borrowed from the GPL'd software -- they can do whatever they want. Speaking practically, the module depends on GPL code to do anything, but the technical guts are all that matter when it comes to legal ramifications.

Their only requirement is that they redistribute the GPL'd code, which usually means a page on their site stating the use of Zen Cart with a link to the project site. That happens almost as a matter of course for a vendor developing modules for a third party project like Zen Cart.

An example.

Let's say your module developer utilizes some of Zen Cart admin graphing functions, say zen_get_banner_data_yearly. If their module simply calls the function that natively exists in Zen Cart, they are all good with the GPL. However, if they decide to copy that function to their module, and make some adjustments to suit their needs, now they have a problem. The act of modifying the source code places everything in their module under the GPL, and they would be legally obligated to release it.

In this case, you have no evidence that they've borrowed code, so you're on really weak footing. A better approach be to point out larger vendors who lead by example. This site runs on vBulletin, which is 100% proprietary and does provide source code to each and every client (they distribute just regular ol' PHP, no encryption crap). They're a lot older and bigger than your module vendor and they've done alright.

Does this kind of thing happen? I'm sure it does. Is it legally enforcible? Technically yes, but the reality of the situation -- time and money required to bring suit -- makes it almost impossible. This legal gotcha nonsense is one of the big reasons why more permissive licenses like MIT have gained popularity in recent years.

If you'd like some additional reading, ChooseALicense.com is a great resource for additional information, and this blog posts puts things in fairly human terms.

[Obligatory notice that I am not a lawyer, consult your attorney, blah blah blah]