Hello Sven,

I know this is a very all thread, and I've also read this other thread regarding licensing. I think it is a very important topic (and pretty complex, I'd say).

While reviewing all this information, the license, etc. there's something that I thought I understood, but now it is not clear to me... and maybe you can help. I understand the motivations about using GPL v3.0 for the project, although I agree that the licensing is easier to understand applied to the Authoring tool (rather than for the framework).

You say that "The choice of license does prevent the code being sold as such (i.e. someone just selling to software without adding any value)", and for a long time, after a cursory overview of the license, I too thought this was the case, but now I'm not so sure. If you get a chance, could you briefly point out what clauses in the license prevent somebody for selling a plugin? As far as I see, in the Preamble, the license says:
"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish)"
In clause 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients, it says:
"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"

But that does not mean that you can't charge to distribute a GPL-ed piece of code (a plugin, in our case). In fact in the GNU site it talks about this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

And looking at something like Totara... (I'm not familiar with it though) it seems to be that way... it's a GPL product, but the Enterprise version cannot be downloaded for free.

So all that is what's causing me to not be clear about this issue at all. Of course I'm not a lawyer either, and this can get pretty complex.

Please notice that I'm not saying this because I think it's a good idea to try to sell plugins. I don't think that's the case, and I agree with the underlying intentions that you have explained to help grow the reach of Adapt. The only big plugin (an xAPI extension) I've contributed to Adapt is available for free on GitHub. I think that selling a plugin is not practical anyway... because even if somebody charges for a plugin, the buyer will acquire all the rights under the license, and thus he will be able to re-distribute it if he wants (and may do it for free... so nobody will buy the other guy's plugin, since they can get it legally for free). The GPL license is about not limiting the user's rights, as I understand it.

I'll explain the case I have in mind, so you understand where I'm coming from:

As a service provider that does Adapt work, I make/customize a theme for a client. I obviously charge for my work/time (not for the code itself). Since the theme is a derivative work of the bundled Vanilla theme, and is therefore a covered work, clause 10 applies, and when I give the new theme to my client, she has to abide by the license as well (I do understand that a different license might apply to **some parts** of the new theme, e.g. images that the client owns). So, my client might decide to start selling that theme (whether she succeeds at it is another matter), and -according to the GPL license- I can't stop her from doing so. I can buy a copy, and then redistribute it for free, thus affecting her ability to sell. Of course, it doesn't make sense that I buy something that I've created... I already 'have' it, but if I created the theme under a work agreement with the client, just for that client, most likely I can't make free use of that theme, regardless of the GPL license (maybe there's a conflict between the GPL license and the Work agreement between my company and my client).

So, this seems to leave me -the provider- in a weak situation. This is why I really want to understand how it is that the license used in Adapt really prevents people from selling plugins, because I want it to be true!

Maybe clause 2 is relevant here, where it says "You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you"... maybe this situation can be seen as that: the client conveys an existing theme to me (although she does not 'give' it to me literally, she just says 'use the Vanilla theme as a starting point') for the sole purpose that I make modifications...

I might be looking too much into it, I don't know, but I think it can get very complex... and I think it is because of the nature of the Framework: it is source and executable at the same time, and it bundles code and content...⋅

So... if you or anybody can shed any light of this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Also, regarding the Adapt Community, there's something I've thought several times... so I'll say it: Aside from the Technical, Responsive, and Job forums... maybe it would be useful to have a separate forum for Business issues, because that's a very important aspect of Adapt as well. Many (or most) community members probably want to make commercial use of Adapt, or are using it in a commercial setting, or want to understand the licenses, and what can be done or not, etc. so, opening up that aspect for discussion might be appropriate, I think. At some levels we're all competitors, but we can be so in a healthy environment. I think that the whole Adapt initiative is a superb example of collaboration between different companies that operate in the same business space.

Thanks.