Dear all,
I'm considering appending a Creative Commons License to my contributed code, such as:
http://creativecommons.org/choose/cc-gpl or others on http://creativecommons.org/
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
I'm happy for the code to be used commercially, but wish always to be attributed. I'm also thinking of some more contributions for which if used commercially I would like remuneration for. What does everybody think about this given the Moodle 'way of doing things'?
Thanks,
Gareth
Since Moodle is GPL V2 licensed,
you have to give you module also a GPL V2 license.
When you put your module on the Moodle site under modules, you cannot force anybody anymore to pay you for your work, but I think this is pretty much clear already.
You are allowed, to put in your module some form of 'This module is copyrighted by XYZ' if you feel like this is a great module, you can support me by sending flowers to 'ABC', or better, donate me on '....'
I would only show this to admins though, not to end users.
I write software for my end customer under the GPLV2 license (I have to) and he can do whatever he feels like doing with it. He can even sell it, or put it on Moodle.org if he wants to obviously he pays me for the work.
you have to give you module also a GPL V2 license.
When you put your module on the Moodle site under modules, you cannot force anybody anymore to pay you for your work, but I think this is pretty much clear already.
You are allowed, to put in your module some form of 'This module is copyrighted by XYZ' if you feel like this is a great module, you can support me by sending flowers to 'ABC', or better, donate me on '....'
I would only show this to admins though, not to end users.
I write software for my end customer under the GPLV2 license (I have to) and he can do whatever he feels like doing with it. He can even sell it, or put it on Moodle.org if he wants to obviously he pays me for the work.
I am not a lawyer, however...
As explained above if you contribute code, or write it for someone, you may not add any other restrictions.
You could write a moodle block/mod and sell it, however, whoever buys it can simply give it away freely as it their legal right.
As you can probably imagine, having "attribution" in the application would be problematic with hundreds of people contributing, there is however a credits page http://docs.moodle.org/en/Credits where contributor/maintainers get a mention.
So from my understanding what you intend above is not legally possible.
As explained above if you contribute code, or write it for someone, you may not add any other restrictions.
You could write a moodle block/mod and sell it, however, whoever buys it can simply give it away freely as it their legal right.
As you can probably imagine, having "attribution" in the application would be problematic with hundreds of people contributing, there is however a credits page http://docs.moodle.org/en/Credits where contributor/maintainers get a mention.
So from my understanding what you intend above is not legally possible.
It's not really the done thing to be honest.
I'm a bit unsure why you would want to. You are welcome to add your name to the copyright notice at the top but hardly anybody sees it. Contributing to Moodle just gives you a warm glow inside - you have to be content with that
You can certainly develop Moodle code and sell it (doing just that pays for my ridiculous hobbies). However, its hard to get away from the GPL (99% of the time you can't) so if you release the code to a client then its gone. That's ok - the deal is "you pay for it and we will release it to the Moodle Community - everybody happy". Alternatively, host the resulting system yourself and do not allow access to the code. It is still GPL though.
The GPL doesn't force you to share and doesn't stop you charging but once you do share then it's gone.
It's perfectly possible to make a living coding in this type of environment but it does take a slight change in thinking from what you might be used to.
I'm a bit unsure why you would want to. You are welcome to add your name to the copyright notice at the top but hardly anybody sees it. Contributing to Moodle just gives you a warm glow inside - you have to be content with that
You can certainly develop Moodle code and sell it (doing just that pays for my ridiculous hobbies). However, its hard to get away from the GPL (99% of the time you can't) so if you release the code to a client then its gone. That's ok - the deal is "you pay for it and we will release it to the Moodle Community - everybody happy". Alternatively, host the resulting system yourself and do not allow access to the code. It is still GPL though.
The GPL doesn't force you to share and doesn't stop you charging but once you do share then it's gone.
It's perfectly possible to make a living coding in this type of environment but it does take a slight change in thinking from what you might be used to.
Dear all,
Thank you for your thoughts. What I have created already, I understand is GPL and does give me a warm glow (thanks Howard). At the moment, if I create a new theme or module, how I could charge for it as a piece of work possibly in the same way as New School Learning charges for theme's - http://newschoollearning.com/theme/ - which are additions to Moodle outside of the core.
The reason I am doing this is because I am moving from full time employment back to full time learning as a student and just investigating ways of supplementing my income (or lack of!). I'm happy with the donation-ware model though.
Thanks,
Gareth
Thank you for your thoughts. What I have created already, I understand is GPL and does give me a warm glow
The reason I am doing this is because I am moving from full time employment back to full time learning as a student and just investigating ways of supplementing my income (or lack of!). I'm happy with the donation-ware model though.
Thanks,
Gareth
I would recommend talking to the Moodle partners in your country for some freelance / ad hoc development work if they have any.
Before proceeding with what you are contemplating, please read what the Free Software Foundation has to say about the problems original BSD license, which included an attribution clause.
You should also read http://docs.moodle.org/en/License, particularly the trademark bit.
In terms of making money, you have to ask what you are going to be paid for, and basically there are two choices.
1. Build up a stock of intellectual property (write some themes or plugins), and then charge people money for using 'your' intellectual 'property'.
2. Charge people for the time you spend doing custom development for them.
1. is basically the business model of the large record companies. Since Moodle is GPL, and since any plugin is inevitably a derivative work, you really can't choose another license for your work, so that makes 1. hard.
However, it is not impossible. Looking at http://newschoollearning.com/about/terms/, I see that Patrick Malley is protecting his premium themes by drawing a distinction between the PHP code, and so on, in the theme which has to be GPL, and the actual graphic design (presumably, in particular, the contents of any graphics files) which he keeps rights over. That probably just about works.
The thing that you can use is that the GPL says "Whenever you give someone a copy of your work, you have to give them a copy of the original source under the GPL, so they can then give it to anyone they like." However, it does not say you have to make your work freely download-able on the internet. You can only give copies to people who pay you, and then hope that they don't make it freely available.
2. is fundamentally a simpler proposition - you are selling your time, and then anything you produce is available for the benefit of all. There are just two practical problems with that.
First, writing a plugin is a lot of work. If you have to charge the entire cost of that to one customer, you may price yourself out of the market. In comparison, if you can make one theme, then sell it to a few dozen people for $40, then that spreads the cost.
Second, If you are offering a theme for download on your website for a certain cost, then people can look at that theme and decide whether they think it is worth the amount of money you are asking. In comparison, if you are trying to get someone to commission you to do custom development, then they have to take it on trust how good the work you produce for them will be.
Of course, you have something of a track record with the collapsed topics course format.
So, I am afraid that there is not a simple answer.
One way to get business that occurs to me is to keep an eye on the forums and look for people requesting something. (I recent example would be http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=155056) When something like that comes up, I don't think it would be inappropriate to post a brief reply saying "I do custom Moodle development and think I could implement this for you, contact me if you want to talk about it." If you reply privately there is certainly no problem. Replying in the forum directly is probably OK if your reply is not too spammy.
You should also read http://docs.moodle.org/en/License, particularly the trademark bit.
In terms of making money, you have to ask what you are going to be paid for, and basically there are two choices.
1. Build up a stock of intellectual property (write some themes or plugins), and then charge people money for using 'your' intellectual 'property'.
2. Charge people for the time you spend doing custom development for them.
1. is basically the business model of the large record companies. Since Moodle is GPL, and since any plugin is inevitably a derivative work, you really can't choose another license for your work, so that makes 1. hard.
However, it is not impossible. Looking at http://newschoollearning.com/about/terms/, I see that Patrick Malley is protecting his premium themes by drawing a distinction between the PHP code, and so on, in the theme which has to be GPL, and the actual graphic design (presumably, in particular, the contents of any graphics files) which he keeps rights over. That probably just about works.
The thing that you can use is that the GPL says "Whenever you give someone a copy of your work, you have to give them a copy of the original source under the GPL, so they can then give it to anyone they like." However, it does not say you have to make your work freely download-able on the internet. You can only give copies to people who pay you, and then hope that they don't make it freely available.
2. is fundamentally a simpler proposition - you are selling your time, and then anything you produce is available for the benefit of all. There are just two practical problems with that.
First, writing a plugin is a lot of work. If you have to charge the entire cost of that to one customer, you may price yourself out of the market. In comparison, if you can make one theme, then sell it to a few dozen people for $40, then that spreads the cost.
Second, If you are offering a theme for download on your website for a certain cost, then people can look at that theme and decide whether they think it is worth the amount of money you are asking. In comparison, if you are trying to get someone to commission you to do custom development, then they have to take it on trust how good the work you produce for them will be.
Of course, you have something of a track record with the collapsed topics course format.
So, I am afraid that there is not a simple answer.
One way to get business that occurs to me is to keep an eye on the forums and look for people requesting something. (I recent example would be http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=155056) When something like that comes up, I don't think it would be inappropriate to post a brief reply saying "I do custom Moodle development and think I could implement this for you, contact me if you want to talk about it." If you reply privately there is certainly no problem. Replying in the forum directly is probably OK if your reply is not too spammy.
Dear Tim,
First of all - wow! Thank you for such a lengthy reply. I am thinking about point '1' and possibly doing some consultation in the future - for which I will contact the Moodle help desk for trademark permission.
To play devil's advocate here in reading the GPL as stated and to potentially fill any possible loop whole, there is a statement in the license that states:
'In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.'
Therefore any separate aggregated works created from scratch not based upon existing Moodle GPL code would not be subject to the GPL license as they are additions too rather than derivatives of. In OO terms, a new class designed to work with the existing classes rather than a new sibling inheriting from an existing class.
But I have no intent to circumvent the original philosophy, motive and morality of being 'free'. So many people have already benefited from Moodle's philanthropic stance.
However, this is quite a bit to take in for a sleepy August Sunday
and requires a bit more thinking time.
Thanks,
Gareth
First of all - wow! Thank you for such a lengthy reply. I am thinking about point '1' and possibly doing some consultation in the future - for which I will contact the Moodle help desk for trademark permission.
To play devil's advocate here in reading the GPL as stated and to potentially fill any possible loop whole, there is a statement in the license that states:
'In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.'
Therefore any separate aggregated works created from scratch not based upon existing Moodle GPL code would not be subject to the GPL license as they are additions too rather than derivatives of. In OO terms, a new class designed to work with the existing classes rather than a new sibling inheriting from an existing class.
But I have no intent to circumvent the original philosophy, motive and morality of being 'free'. So many people have already benefited from Moodle's philanthropic stance.
However, this is quite a bit to take in for a sleepy August Sunday
Thanks,
Gareth
The question of whether a Moodle plugin can be independent of Moodle has been discussed in the past in these forums. See http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=100632 and http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=121826. I also remember a longer, more detailed thread, but I can't find it now.
Anyway, the short answer is that any Moodle plugin is a derivative of the standard Moodle release, and so has to be distributed under the GPL. At least that was the conclusion reached.
However, I hope you can find a way to make money from doing Moodle development.
Anyway, the short answer is that any Moodle plugin is a derivative of the standard Moodle release, and so has to be distributed under the GPL. At least that was the conclusion reached.
However, I hope you can find a way to make money from doing Moodle development.
I am prettu sure that what newschoollearning does is not allowed by GPL,
All themes/code are linked directly into Moodle and this are covered by GPL V2. It's as simple as that, I am pretty sure it includes images and themes. it's not that the image get's loaded through some soap service (dis-coupling the images from code) an dtha t iamges get's loaded from outside of Moodle. They are clearly part of.
GPL V2 states:
Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?
------------------------------------------
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered copyright FSF, please inform the FSF immediately by writing to license-violation@gnu.org.
If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.
That said,
the best way to make money is be good what you are doing and people will hire you.
All themes/code are linked directly into Moodle and this are covered by GPL V2. It's as simple as that, I am pretty sure it includes images and themes. it's not that the image get's loaded through some soap service (dis-coupling the images from code) an dtha t iamges get's loaded from outside of Moodle. They are clearly part of.
GPL V2 states:
Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?
------------------------------------------
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered copyright FSF, please inform the FSF immediately by writing to license-violation@gnu.org.
If the violation involves GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of violation of the GPL.
That said,
the best way to make money is be good what you are doing and people will hire you.
It is interesting to speculate whether what newschoollearning is allowed, or not. I don't particularly care myself. Patrick Malley and newschoollearning contribute quite a lot to the community (e.g. the recent Moodle 2.0 themes competition, the help Patrick has given recently in the themes forum helping people understand theming in 2.0 in the Theme forum, the themes Patrick is making for the main Moodle 2.0 release ...)
Anyway, is it allowed to to ship a theme where all the .php and .css are GPL, but the contents of all the .png and .jpg files are under another licence?
Think about how the PHP/CSS links to the images: The PHP output and CSS contain URLs that point to specific image files in the theme. Those URLs are sent to the user's web browser, and the user's web browser then requests the contents of those images form the server. So, you can argue that the image files are only being linked to via a RESTful web service, and so they can be released under a different licence. (See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation.) But, that is not the only possible argument you could make.
Anyway, is it allowed to to ship a theme where all the .php and .css are GPL, but the contents of all the .png and .jpg files are under another licence?
Think about how the PHP/CSS links to the images: The PHP output and CSS contain URLs that point to specific image files in the theme. Those URLs are sent to the user's web browser, and the user's web browser then requests the contents of those images form the server. So, you can argue that the image files are only being linked to via a RESTful web service, and so they can be released under a different licence. (See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation.) But, that is not the only possible argument you could make.
If you are touting for Moodle work the reality is that a lot of it is making very specific modifications for users. Nobody else would want it anyway. You charge them for your hours. The good thing is that the code is GPL so YOU can reuse it in other applications (they can't say "nobody else can use this code").
If you are thinking in terms of writing very general plugins that lots of people might want it is trickier. Get someone to sponsor it and you get paid. After that you need to see it as advertising. Having work you did out there isn't a bad thing for you.
Personally, I can't think of anything worse than working in a closed source environment, protecting my IP all the time. If somebody finds something I wrote useful then fantastic, they can have it. There are other ways to make money from IT skills.
If you are thinking in terms of writing very general plugins that lots of people might want it is trickier. Get someone to sponsor it and you get paid. After that you need to see it as advertising. Having work you did out there isn't a bad thing for you.
Personally, I can't think of anything worse than working in a closed source environment, protecting my IP all the time. If somebody finds something I wrote useful then fantastic, they can have it. There are other ways to make money from IT skills.
Dear Howard,
Thanks
I spent most of my early career in a close source environment where protection of IP was king. Then I transitioned into education out of the full glow of the software engineering spotlight, where open source really started to take shape. I have come to love it and the concept, not only for Moodle but for other things like Ubunutu (using now).
I have an idea that I want to integrate into a Moodle 2.0 theme that I will create regardless of cash to help improve my PHP and JavaScript skills and am going to release to the community. I just thought that as a lot of commercial companies release their software for free for non-profit organisations but charge if used commercially, then I could employ the same model.
However, I like the idea of 'advertising'. What other 'ways' are there to make money from IT Skills that you know of?
Thanks,
Gareth
Thanks
I spent most of my early career in a close source environment where protection of IP was king. Then I transitioned into education out of the full glow of the software engineering spotlight, where open source really started to take shape. I have come to love it and the concept, not only for Moodle but for other things like Ubunutu (using now).
I have an idea that I want to integrate into a Moodle 2.0 theme that I will create regardless of cash to help improve my PHP and JavaScript skills and am going to release to the community. I just thought that as a lot of commercial companies release their software for free for non-profit organisations but charge if used commercially, then I could employ the same model.
However, I like the idea of 'advertising'. What other 'ways' are there to make money from IT Skills that you know of?
Thanks,
Gareth
" I just thought that as a lot of commercial companies release their software for free for non-profit organisations but charge if used commercially, then I could employ the same model."
Not really with Moodle. The GPL license allows anybody who has the code to share it. Of course if you can get someone to pay for it then good for you (the GPL doesn't stop you asking for money). I honestly think this is a good thing. It's all a bit fundamentalist, but I think you should be paid for doing the work in the first place but what you produce should be free. I think this drives innovation.
The hard bit is getting paid for it in the first place but that's just marketing. There *are* people out there looking for Moodle customisation who are willing to pay. The end result may or may not have general appeal.
I appreciate that this pretty much negates writing code "on spec" which is what I think you are thinking about. It strikes me that with Moodle 2.0 (which has web services etc.) that it might be perfectly possible to produce something that works with Moodle but is not derivative at all - then you can apply an license you wish. I have some ideas but I'm keeping them to myself
Not really with Moodle. The GPL license allows anybody who has the code to share it. Of course if you can get someone to pay for it then good for you (the GPL doesn't stop you asking for money). I honestly think this is a good thing. It's all a bit fundamentalist, but I think you should be paid for doing the work in the first place but what you produce should be free. I think this drives innovation.
The hard bit is getting paid for it in the first place but that's just marketing. There *are* people out there looking for Moodle customisation who are willing to pay. The end result may or may not have general appeal.
I appreciate that this pretty much negates writing code "on spec" which is what I think you are thinking about. It strikes me that with Moodle 2.0 (which has web services etc.) that it might be perfectly possible to produce something that works with Moodle but is not derivative at all - then you can apply an license you wish. I have some ideas but I'm keeping them to myself
Dear Howard,
Thank you for your thoughts. I think, given all of the words - I'll go ahead and code for free and then ask for donations.
Moodle 2.0's web service enhancements are interesting and hopefully will allow far greater integration with other education focused software.
Thanks,
Gareth
Thank you for your thoughts. I think, given all of the words - I'll go ahead and code for free and then ask for donations
Moodle 2.0's web service enhancements are interesting and hopefully will allow far greater integration with other education focused software.
Thanks,
Gareth
Gareth,
You may just be looking at it form the wrong angle. There is not if any money in Open Source code development. The money is in the courseware. Think back over time. How many time has the question been asked how do I change some code or write a module? Such groups are adult learners, have a degree, focused, motivated and have money. From a instructional view "Utopia."
IMHO
John
You may just be looking at it form the wrong angle. There is not if any money in Open Source code development. The money is in the courseware. Think back over time. How many time has the question been asked how do I change some code or write a module? Such groups are adult learners, have a degree, focused, motivated and have money. From a instructional view "Utopia."
IMHO
John
"there is not if any money in Open Source code development"
I disagree. - works really well for us - the company I work for has built a business around open source development (Moodle is only a part of that.)
http://www.catalyst.net.nz/
We have over 100 staff in NZ and now have offices in AU and UK.
I disagree. - works really well for us - the company I work for has built a business around open source development (Moodle is only a part of that.)
http://www.catalyst.net.nz/
We have over 100 staff in NZ and now have offices in AU and UK.
"There is not if any money in Open Source code developmen"
Sorry John, but that's a ridiculous assertion. There's plenty of people making a living from developing Open Source software. It's just a (slightly) different business model from developing closed source.
In reality, very little software that's worth having was written by somebody working for free.
Sorry John, but that's a ridiculous assertion. There's plenty of people making a living from developing Open Source software. It's just a (slightly) different business model from developing closed source.
In reality, very little software that's worth having was written by somebody working for free.
My apology, I was not angling to trawl. The comments have brought out a couple of great comments which should give hope and maybe direction. For that I am not sorry. Being provocative is a good teaching technique. I will leave it there and wait for the nurse to finish putting my dinner through the blender.
John
John
Ha ha ha... No worries.
I should have said that there is *certainly* a business to be made out of good course materials. This is evidenced by the amount of *bad* materials that go around!!
I should have said that there is *certainly* a business to be made out of good course materials. This is evidenced by the amount of *bad* materials that go around!!
Just to put the blender in context. I started code cutting back at the beginning of 1970. We where coding straight into a compiler. The vendors book of ROM routines and 2K of memory. I was about 24 at the time. I miss those days. NOT!
John
John
Single chip 1-bit (yes 1) processors for heating controllers. The Hitachi ones we used had "pseudo-random" instruction counters. You proclaimed your code was correct and then they burned 10,000 of them. I don't miss those days either.
Kids today - they don't believe you
Kids today - they don't believe you
Umm, I do believe you as I consider myself a 'kid' in the current cohort of the thread having programmed 68000 assembler back at Uni in 1991 - oh the wonders of the 'mulu' instruction.
:D
Gareth
:D
Gareth
Gareth,
The absolute luxury of being able to play with 68XX series. I built my first machine straight out of Electronics Australia all switches and LED's and a 6502 processor. If all the LEDS's stayed or did not come on shore as the CPU had gone. The very first computer I owned, well it has some vague resemblance to today's desktop was a Vic20.
John
The absolute luxury of being able to play with 68XX series. I built my first machine straight out of Electronics Australia all switches and LED's and a 6502 processor. If all the LEDS's stayed or did not come on shore as the CPU had gone. The very first computer I owned, well it has some vague resemblance to today's desktop was a Vic20.
John