GPL 3 May Require Websites to Relinquish Code 574
Vicissidude writes "At present, companies that distribute GPL-licensed software must make the source code publicly available, including any modifications they've made. Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends, it doesn't cover Web companies that use such software to offer their services through the Web, as they're not actually distributing the software.
GPL 3, the next version of the free software license, a draft of which is expected to be released in early 2006, may close this loophole, GPL author and Free Software Foundation head Richard Stallman said in an interview."
Loophole? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
When this ruleset is extended partially to include recieving output of a program as a basis for the right to have its source code, the option for much worse loopholes is created. Loopholes which will terrify and drive away developers, especially when that one loophole is expanded to cover disclosure avoidance loopholes.
Simply put, its the gateway from which a huge mess will sprawl forth. (And I'm curious how they'll handle taking a snippet of GPL3 code from an app with the upload "feature" and putting it into GPL2 code. Nevermind basic concerns about an upload feature which cannot be removed may pose as a great means to DoS a site, or the ruleset that explains throughout the various possibilities what throttling options are available and to what extent.
Re:Loophole?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the first part of this, however as someone who develops code for use on the web I'd say that I was the user and the people looking at my website are seeing documents that is produced by what I set up. I'm the user. The people who are looking at the web pages are consumers of my product. (the pages).
The "remote user" is not a user of the software, they are a user of the result of my use of the software. If I hadn't set it up, they wouldn't be able to see the results.
It's like requiring the plans to a printing company, and a paper factory whenever you buy a book. The manufacting info of the book is not what you are buying, just the contents.
Re:Loophole?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you're wrong.
Let's take GMail as an example. I'm an end user. I don't develop GMail; heck, I don't even work for Google at all. Nevertheless, I would prefer it if GMail were GPL v3, because
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what the heck is web-based applications, the TCP/IP stack that makes it all possible? The web-server code? I think adding this into a general clause in GPL3 would
Re:Loophole? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Funny)
Did you just combine the words pedagogue and ideologue? Because I can't find it in any dictionary. Interestingly, both words seem to fit RMS.
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
But million dollar marketing campaigns, FUD, and 800lb gorillas always trumps good.
Re:Loophole? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do the folks who insist on keeping "God" in "one nation under God" want to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
You speak here of fundamental rights and freedoms in the US. Yet, it your post you say, "Freedom isn't a big deal. Who cares about it? No one. What people want is good software."
That's true. Did you know that the USSR had a 0% unemployment rate? Everyone had a job. Did you see the unemployed from capitalist, and socialist countries moving to the communist USSR? No.
Because Good just isn't good enough. At some point you have to lay down that you feel that people have a Right to your code, because you said so, and that no amount of "better" that can be tacked onto that program trumps that Right to keep seeing the source code.
Yes, it's advancing an ideology, and not advancing good software, but that's not the point. The F/OSS community doesn't have the mission statement "A computer on every desk running F/OSS." So our goal is *not* to force our software on everyone. F/OSS is driven by the goal of Free (as in Speech) Software For All Mankind.
If you don't like it, go back to using Windows, because that's Good Software. Meanwhile others who agree with the ideology will keep using Linux, because it's Free Software. Not because Linux is better than Windows, but because you feel that access to the source code should be a Right, not a Priviledge.
(Statements are my own, and do not reflect those of the company I work for.)
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, Slashdot is different these days...
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two decades ago, RMS was a nut who talked about making a free clone of UNIX.
With a few notable exceptions (such as Gnu Hurd), that task was accomplished. Even today, GNU software makes up a large portion of most modern Linux distributions, and the GNU Compiler Collection is even used to compile the open source BSDs.
So he's a talented nut, but he still had strange ideas about how corporations and government would control the right to access media.
Now, with Trusted Computing, DMCA, Broadcast Flags,
Re:Loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loophole? (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL, if it includes all the things it's been alleged to have planned, will alienate every single corporate user it has. At that point, it really will be for hippies living in their parents' basements.
Re:Loophole? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Loophole? (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it is an idea R.S. gave, second point, i think itnot bad per se if some developer wants his code open even if you do not redistribute: in the end, it he chooses users must disclose all changes just by using the code in a away an end user faces it.
Anyway it's ridiculous and i would call that whatever by GPL in spirit. That should go on another license not a GPL one IMHO.
There is at least one license... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are using a CMS, like SlashCode, and if the CMS authors create the feature to allow users of your server to download the SlashCode source code, you must leave this in place. I doubt that any CMS author would design this feature to download the files that are actually
Re:Loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, obviously this can be circumvented by not distributing the modified software, such as keeping it on an in-house web server only, and then simply rejecting the GPL terms. But if you wish to distribute copies of it, you will have to leave the offer for the source code intact on any copies you make.
This new development IN NO WAY requires anyone to release source code for a server application that they are not distributing binaries for.
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not true. From the GPL:
Re:Loophole? (Score:5, Interesting)
To understand the GPL (version 3, but really this applies to previous versions as well) you have to stop thinking as a programmer, and start thinking as a user. (It has always surprised me that hackers (of all the people in the world?!) have been the advocates of GPL. Hackers and programmers have the least incentive, of all the population, to need this. GPL is for users.) Preferably, as a helpless user whose ass has been bitten by proprietary software. (Remember RMS and his damned printer driver in 1983.)
Imagine you are a user of proprietary software. One day, you need maintenance. Maybe you need a new feature, or maybe you need a bugfix, or maybe an update removed a feature that you still need. And imagine you're dependent on this software. You have lots of existing documents stored in a proprietary format that only this software can use. You have been trained to use this software and not trained to use its competitor. You need it.
But the company who made this software went out of business 4 years ago. Or they simply don't give a damn about you and will not customize their shrink-wrapped product for your obscure pathetic little whiney need, because you're as insignificant as a cockroach to them. Or they want to charge you $500 per hour for their work. Or the feature that you want happens to be against the law in their jurisdiction. Or they're just incompetent.
You're fucked. Nobody can (or will) help you. Do you really give a damn whether the software happens to run on your local machine (it was "distributed" to you) or on a remote machine? And get this: if it runs remotely, then even if it's Free Software instead of proprietary, then you're still fucked, unless the programmer happens to be a nice guy.
GPL is about freedom of maintenance. It should be a guarantee that you can always get maintenance. As a last resort, you can always do the work yourself or hire whoever you want who is qualified, to handle whatever you need done. GPL is a major development in safety from ever being orphaned or exploited. It forces software maintenance into a free market.
As a programmer, if you build derived works of GPLed code, and have users who merely use your software (without distributing it to them) you are creating a situation where those users are dependent on you. They are unable to modify the software or hire someone else to do that. If you die, lose interest in the project, get in a dispute with them, etc, then they're screwed. That's totally contrary to the intent of GPL, and that's why it's a loophole.
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Informative)
None, at least to me. Both are using, not distributing.
Note that GPLv2 specifically includes limits only to distribution, not to use. In fact, you are not even required to accept it at all:
Re:It won't effect the average user (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Loophole? (Score:5, Informative)
That's your opinion. However it's the opinions of the authors of the GPL (RMS and Moglen) who get to define the intention of the GPL. As they have found a flaw in the GPL which allows GPL licensed code to be used in a way counter to their intentions, they are taking responsibility and working to bring the GPL more in line with their intentions.
Expanding the GPL to force source disclosure to anyone who recieves the output of GPL code is absolutely unreasonable.
Believe me, they understand that and understood it long before you ever even considered that possibility, and that's why they don't intend to create that requirement.
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, by limiting the freedom of people to use free software for purposes Stallman doesn't like. Stallman is making this change for one simple reason: he wants
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you seen the GPL v3? You cannot say things like "they *are*" and "is backed by much legalese" without having seen the new GPL (which is quite impossible as it doesn't even exist yet).
You can rest assured that RMS and Moglen understand the issues involved, and are considering them very carefully.
After there are enough incompatible versions of
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why?
Because the authors of the GPL have said so, and they are the ones who, by definition, decide their intentions when creating the GPL.
If I wrote a book using a modified version of a GPL word processor, would I have to publish the modified code?
Nope, and that would not only be a stupid requirement, and would violate the freedoms the FSF intends to promote.
The fact is that web services make the web surfer the u
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Interesting)
I broadly agree with you but am not sure that it's really a new class of computer user. Is there really much difference between a web application running on a remote machine which presents it's users with a browser based interface and a normal X Window System client application running on a remote machine which pr
Re:Loophole? (Score:3, Informative)
The intention of the license is very clear--it's to promote four very specific freedoms [gnu.org]. In the opinions of RMS and Moglen, the current version of the GPL fails to ensure those freedoms in a specific set of circumstances. This is due to a loophole--a loophole not between the wording of the GPL and this specific set of circumstances, but a loophole between the intention o
Re:Loophole? (Score:4, Interesting)
They really, *really* haven't thought about this. The existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes. Now they're saying "well, your software is staying in-house, but you have limitations on what you can do with it, depending on what data you handle or that data's source". Well screw that. That's precisely what everyone hates about DRM - it's restricting how software is allowed to use data that you already own.
Personally, I can see GPL3 getting zero use if that gets in. Or if anyone adopts it, there'll be an instant fork of that application, simply due to the licensing (Google for one are majorly unlikely to be releasing their search algorithms to the world), and all the active users will adopt the GPL2 fork, leaving a few people on a wasting-away GPL3 fork. That really doesn't help anyone.
Basically, this proposal is exactly what we all hate about closed-source software licensing - their ability to bait-and-switch. Get people using the software, with data that's tied to the software, and then change the licensing terms on your next upgrade. "Oh, you don't want this restriction? and you don't want to pay $x to keep your software? Then goodbye, and good luck getting your data back." In this case, the GPL team are doing the same with a software install base. "Don't like this new license? then forget about using Apache, GTK, etc. Oh, that screws your business which was previously using them legally? Too bad."
On the same topic of not thinking things through, consider the proposal to ban selected companies from using GPL software. This is even crazier. Again we're back to the ability of software licensors to arbitrarily revoke your license to use software and leave you high and dry.
Luckily we have the ability to keep going with the GTK2 license, which I predict will be the result - the GPL3 license will die, unused and unloved. The only result will be a permanent loss of credibility for RMS and the GPL in general, which would be a shame.
Grab.
Private modifications... (Score:5, Informative)
You couldn't be more wrong:
There are two grants in this clause:
1. [marked with first] the unconditional grant to make derivative works;
2. [marked with second] the conditional grant to distribute derivative works.
This means you may modify a GPL'd program and keep your changes to you. If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
Got it? IANAL & TINLA, but I am a paralegal.
One thing at a time (Score:4, Insightful)
1a. a corporation is one type of person. In some acts, a corp is represented by some employee that has permission to execute that act. For instance, my enterprise's IT manager (who has proper permission from the rules of the corporation) goes to the MS dealer and negotiates a site license for XP Pro. Who will pay the bill, the IT manager? The IT department? No, the corporation. Who is the licensee? The corporation.
2. note that if Wal-Mart[...] You have noticed you were talking about a tangible good (aprons) instead of copiable, intellectual content? (which we are discussing here) If you were talking about software, for instance, the answer would be: No, they have not distributed it (see #1 above). technically? We are talking about copyright law here, so technically, ie, legally, this does not count as distribution... because no other person is receiving the copies, just the same (legal) person.
3. What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? The copyright law. The person that bought/got/modified the software is the enterprise (acting according to its own internal regulations [*]), the thing starts to be distribution when an authorized person inside the enterprise says "hey, guys, you can take our rebranded OpenOffice.org home and install in your computer"... because then the "Enterprise" person is distributing to the "Employee" person a copy of the software. As opposed to an authorized person inside the Enterprise installing the software in a computer that belongs to the enterprise (no distribution there).
3a. [*] even when acting against corp regulations, the corporation is still liable for the actions of its employees, if others (mainly execs) take notice of said actions and do nothing about it. But this is another can of worms.
4. what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers? The fact that you would then be distributing it?
5. Which is never the case. Sure it is. When your enterprise buys a site license for XP Pro (3000 seats), the enterprise is the licensee. When your IT manager downloads Apache and installs it in an enterprise's server, with permission from the enterprise's execs, the enterprise is the licensee, because the IT manager is doing that on behalf of the enterprise.
6. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's[...] Enterprises do not have "personal" usage of nothing, only commercial, because they are commercial by nature. Anyway, even for personal use (which an enterprise can buy for an exec, for instance) XP Pro's license only permits installing in one machine.
better now?
Re:One thing at a time (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you are wrong again, and confused: for books, you are right, but for GPL'd software the corporation already has the right of making copies, modifying such copies, and installing them on all of its machines! If you are worried about the "corporation loophole", see what I said in my other comment below.
Au contraire... it is not a "personal usage only" license, it's a "public", "applied-to-all", license that specifically allows you to copy and modify GPL'd works at will, and only tries to restrict you when you try to distribute (as in copyright distribution, ie, publishing) the modified copies.
Come on, read 17USC106 -- those are the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (no ellipses here, this is an exaustive list):
Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly.
As you can see, distribution/publishing is covered by item #3. I know is asking too much from a
Not really (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not really (Score:2)
I think that this is only the case if you are the developer of the original open source application.
The situation that this change is probably aimed at is one where someone takes a FOSS web application (eg BugZilla - assume it uses GPL, though it may not), then modifies and enhances it and releases it as a commercial product that is hosted.
If the BugZilla licence has this clause in it, and you want to enhance it and provide it as a hosted service, then you will have to either release the source code, o
Re:Not really (Score:4, Informative)
I think that this is only the case if you are the developer of the original open source application.
No, so long as you take the fork from the codebase before the license change, you get the origional license. This is exactly what recently happened with Xfree and Xorg - the license changed to one that people didnt like, so a fork was made of the last known codebase with the acceptable license and further developments have been done on that, becoming the dominent fork.
What worries me personally about this amendment to the GPL is that it ceases to be a distribution license only and adds in limitations as to what you can change in the source code. The Gnu Documentation License tried doing this with invariant sections and this was declared to be nonfree by many linux distributions who then refused to carry those documents.
Erm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Partially (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Partially (Score:4, Insightful)
If Google keeps the source code private, how can anyone create a derivative work ? Unless you meant Googlefight [googlefight.com] ;)...
Re:Partially (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Partially (Score:3, Interesting)
(a) source must be provided when distributing but modifications may be kept secret when used privately
(b) source must be provided when distributing and modifications must be made public for private usage.
I personally am against adding this option as I don't think this should be encouraged (and I used the word encouraged because authors don't have to use GPL, there are a wide range of licenses, but GPL is popular because of the simplicity and the principles behind
Devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
If I have an (otherwise proprietary) web application that makes a call to a GPL3'd grep command then I'd have to distribute grep to people if they asked. That sounds silly and unnecessarily burdensome and would create the sort of administrative overhead that would push people to a non-free solution.
However the mechanism Richard Mentions: seems vastly more sane. GPL3'd applications that aren't web-apps won't suddenly require distribution if they are used in a web-app, only applications coded with such use and distribution in mind will.
Re:Devil is in the details (Score:3, Insightful)
Google time.... (Score:3, Interesting)
While I can see the point of making distributors in the conventional sense having to release the source I've a nasty feeling making web service companies reveal their source might only harm the OSS movement in the longer term... Google might be Okay as they've got the bandwidth to be able to release the source code for all OSS code used internally but not sure about the smaller providers...
Re:Google time.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just an option for authors of new code. Seems like a good idea.
Re:Google time.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Google time.... (Score:5, Informative)
Read your post again for me.
Now, that means you can chose to use the GPL 2.0 terms on the software that was distributed by that license (like lets say The GIMP 2.0) or, if you like you could chose any later version of it.
Do you understand now?
Re:Google time.... (Score:2)
So you can distribute proprietary code over a web interface which is GPL3. You can distribute GPL3 code over a proprietary website. But, if your website uses GPL3 code in the HTTP arena (eg. custom GPL3 webserver, GPL3 applets), then you must distribute the source for those applets.
I don't see any problem with this. If
Congratulations on misinterpreting the post... (Score:2)
Re:Google time.... (Score:3, Informative)
try reading it
it says you can't remove a source code downloading function if you make a derivative work, thats it
and, besides, there isn't a gpl3 yet, only some ideas
Re:Google time.... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, I think that the open source community has to handle this very carefully, and clearly, otherwise there will be a lot of confusion around who has to post code and when. That said, we're just seeing drafts now for a license that won't officially exist until January 2007, so making any kind of substantive commentary on it is difficult.
One last thing, the web server (apache) that most people use isn't released under the GPL, so this has nothing to do with that.
Wait a minute (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Huge Security Issue! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huge Security Issue! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huge Security Issue! (Score:2)
I edit it so it has a different skin then the default one. I now have to provide the source code for my website? Fsck that! Does that make my images and content on the website released under the GPL as well?
Re:Huge Security Issue! (Score:2)
-matthew
Re:Huge Security Issue! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huge Security Issue! (Score:3, Insightful)
I edit it so it has a different skin then the default one. I now have to provide the source code for my website? Fsck that! Does that make my images and content on the website released under the GPL as well?
If the original software had a "download source" function in it, you'd have to leave that function intact in the copy you use. For t
Re:Huge Security Issue! (Score:2)
-matthew
People will just use GPL2 or BSD. (Score:2)
As most GPL code says you can use version 2 or later, they will either stay using version 2, or replace the code with a BSD version. Linux is fairly unique in that it is only licensed under GPL2, so this will not affect companies like Google that modfiy Linux for in house use.
Loophole? (Score:2, Insightful)
By closing it off, does this mean that any CMS that's using the GPL will need a link hard-coded and un-removable back to the source for it to be valid?
Asinine, but in the spirit of Free Software (Score:4, Insightful)
So the loophole exists that someone may be able to make available a software package through an interface like the web which does not export the actual software to the client. The application, though, is absolutely in use by the client, he just can't see the source code. The user can't even request the source code (which the GPL forces the distributor to release to the asker). This is way outside the theme of the GPL, and it is not what the GPL writers had in mind when they originally (and revisedly) wrote it. The user should have the freedom to read, learn from, and change the code to the products he uses, that is the spirit of the GPL. By hiding the code and program behind the safety of a webserver, the companies exporting the application via the web interface are restricting the users' ability to do those things.
I don't support Stallman in this. I think it is absolutely the right of these companies to do this sort of thing. And I think that changing the GPL to include such egregious usurpation of rights is a blow to Free Software, both spiritually and tangibly as we will see more people decide to either stick with GPL2.0 or go with a more lenient license.
Re:Asinine, but in the spirit of Free Software (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL, in fact, guarantees that if GPL'd software is used in another product, both products then become infected by the GPL and the resulting work is then covered by the GPL.
This is, sadly, a common misunderstanding when it comes to the GPL. By using the term "infected", you are either misinformed or attempting to misinform; I'll assume the former...
If you use code licensed by the GPL in your closed-source work and you get "caught" distributing it, you have four options:
The copyright holder of the GPLed code can not force you to pick any particular one of the options (except, by the definition of the GPL, you must do #4 if you can't or won't do #1, #2 or #3). You are the copyright holder of your code, and cannot have your license changed against your will any more than they can have the license of their work changed against their will.
Jay (=
GPL does not "infect" (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL, in fact, guarantees that if GPL'd software is used in another product, both products then become infected by the GPL and the resulting work is then covered by the GPL.
Keep in mind that it's copyright law that is viral, not the GPL. Any time you copy a chunk of one copyrighted work into another copyrighted work, you have created a derived work whose copyright is jointly held by both of the original copyright holders. It is illegal to distribute this work unless you have the permission of both.
I guess this is Richard Stallman's answer..... (Score:3, Insightful)
...to the following questions:
What can we do to make sure that for profit enterprises won't ever consider using GPL3 code in any projects?
How can we best add legitimacy to Microsoft's FUD about the GPL?
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't really codify my feelings into words since my examples are all licensed under something OTHER than the GPL (apache,php) but I think everyone sees where this would stiffle GPL-based software growth.
It's like saying that anyone who uses foo shopping cart (licensed under the GPL) to sell t-shirts online must now release any code changes they make to foo shopping cart just because the business uses it to sell t-shirts.
This has been the biggest FUD from Microsoft for the longest time. You shouldn't write an application to run on Linux because you'll be forced to give your code away! With this type of change, that might become fact rather than fud.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
i'm not so sure that this is a good thing (Score:2)
FUD + Dupe = Congrats (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
Needless to say that you should read the actual interview, as things are a bit more complex than what the
Well done
Re:FUD + Dupe = Congrats (Score:5, Informative)
Enforceability (Score:2)
Copyright law also allows authors to impose restrictions on "public performance". Originally, the idea was that the distribution of sheet music for a melody was restricted, but playing a piece on the radio was not reproducing the sheet music. The public performance clause closed that loophole. Here, public pe
Stallman's approach (Score:3, Informative)
E.g. here's some of the latest on OpenBSD and RAID [openbsd.org]:
"Take Adaptec for instance. Before the 3.7 release we disabled support for the aac(4) Adaptec RAID driver because negotiations with the Adaptec had failed. They refused to give us documentation."
and
"But having been ignored for so long by these vendors, it is not clear when (if ever) we will get around to writing that support for Adaptec RAID controllers now. And Adaptec has gone and bought ICP Vortex, which may mean we can never get documentation for the gdt(4) controllers. The "Open Source Friendly liar" IBM owns Mylex, and Mylex has told us we would not get documentation, either. 3Ware has lied to us and our users so many times they make politicians look saintly.
"Until other vendors give us documentation, if you want reliable RAID in OpenBSD, please buy LSI/AMI RAID cards. And everything will just work."
That article is just disinformative (Score:5, Informative)
This is what RMS actually said:
This inteview is also discussed on OSNews [osnews.com].
Re:That article is just disinformative (Score:4, Insightful)
If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program.
Read: If I take a tiny piece of code from a program that implements such a command, I will have to implement one in MY program? Gun, meet foot. I expect that within every large software project there'll be enough people who don't like it to keep it at GPLv2, perhaps even GPLv2 only. GPLv3 seems to be going overboard.
I don't think it's possible. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running."
I don't think it's possible. As even RMS notes, running a program constitutes use, not distribution, and no "copyright license" can tell you how to use your software. Additionally, it's against the spirit of free software.
Re:I don't think it's possible. (Score:2)
Oh yes they can. The trick is that use isn't an exclusive right, and so you can't hang a license on the use of the software. But if you're licensing things that do fall within the exclusive rights, such as reproducing the work in copies, preparing derivatives, distributing copies, etc. then you can throw in conditions. But this doesn't appear to be a use license anyway.
Here, I think that what would happen would be one of two scenarios:
A releases un
Re:I don't think it's possible. (Score:2)
A releases under GPL3, server side software that includes a "download source" command.
B downloads the software.
B then makes changes to the software, and disables the "download source" command.
B does not distribute his software to anyone else.
B puts his software on his own public webserver, where people can utilitize the program's output.
Now... Has B violated Copyright?
It's clear that B is _USING_ the program in a manner in violation of A's wishes, but copyright covers cop
Re:I don't think it's possible. (Score:2)
Right, all those EULAs must just be in my head. I don't see any limitation in copyright law which makes a "viral" EULA work any less than the GPL.
Interesting question.... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting question.... (Score:2)
So hang on... (Score:2)
Yes I know they may not all be GPL3, but this is the kind of thing this 'closed loophole' will lead to.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Did anyone actually read TFA? (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's not a feature that applies to apache, the kernel or anything other than the web application itself. It's not retro-active; the developer has to add it to a newly released version and if you don't like it then continue developing the existing version without it.
MIT/Berkeley license (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really simple.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the GPL, even among people who like it a lot. The simplicity of the MIT license makes it a no-brainer.
Also, there is some question as to whether or not the GPL is a contract or not. There is the possibility that someone could "take back' the license. As there is no apparent consideration (e.g. you didn't pay for the license, did you?), a court might say, OK, he took it back. There was no contract.
That sort of ambiguity, until put to rest, causes trouble for some.
So the MIT (modified Berkeley) license will look better than ever.
4. The freedom to publish modified versions. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yech!
give it a different name (Score:3, Informative)
However, I think it would be a good idea to have two versions of the license, one with this provision and one without, and give them different names, say WGPL (Web GPL) and GPL. If the FSF only releases a revision of the GPL that includes this provision, I suspect many software authors will stick with the GPL2, and they'll be missing other clarifications and improvements in the GPL license.
Can of Worms (Score:3, Interesting)
Scenario 2: My company has an internal software application built in-house with GPLv3 tools and components. This software generates research data. A summary of this data is made available to its customers as, say, PDF files. How is this different from scenario 1?
Scenario 3: My company makes a business out of supplying critical stock trading services to its customers. The backend messaging servers are built on Linux, or use other GPLv3 tools. The application opens interfaces, be they proprietary, to paying customers, so that they can interact with this messaging server.
How is this different from scenario 1?
loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)
Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends
Well no, it absolutely does not. The GPL covers distribution not use, if it covered use, no one would be able to use GPLed software in a commercial setting.
Closing this "loophole" would amount to drastically changing the philosophy behind the GPL.
Though I do vaguely remember reading something about the new rule being an edge case that covers rather rare circumstances, and not a reinvention of the GPL.
Seirously, taken literally this says that if I run a webapp on a GPLed server or even a GPLed OS, I have to release the source code. Yeah, that would fly.
Close another loophole? (Score:3, Informative)
The exploit is this:
When you modify and distribute a GPL program, you must provide the recipient the source code, in one of three ways. Either you give an "offer" to supply the code anytime in the next 3 years, or you let her download it from the same system as the binary, or you ship the source along with the binary.
That 3rd choice provides the loophole, although it requires two cooperating people to abuse it. PersonA hires PersonB to modify the program, and give him 100s or 1000s of matched discs of binaries and source. PersonA then takes out all the source discs and grinds them into powder, and then sells the binary-only discs to customers.
He's allowed to do this because of "first sale" rights [wikipedia.org], which state that someone who legally recieved a copyrighted work can redistribute it, even in damaged or partial form. The customers are buying a modified GPL program, but they didn't get the source included, nor did they get an offer to request the source later.
Note 1: To keep the loophole working, PersonA can never duplicate binary discs himself to sell. That would be copyright infringment. He must always buy new pairs of discs from PersonB, and keep on trashing the source code- although rewritable media will make it more affordable)
Note 2: PersonA must trust PersonB, because PersonB is allowed to give out GPL copies to 3rd parties if he chooses. There is no way PersonA can prevent this, except by enticement of future profitable sales.
As an author of a web toolkit.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I will either continue to use GPL v2 or add an permission to run a website without giving away the code to the GPL v3.
This is NOT a loophole (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Going too far? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I build a business around hosted virus scanning and the backend runs postfix,clam-av and mysql (which I've written all the gluecode myself), why the hell should I be forced to give up that glue code? I'm not selling the software, I'm selling a service, which is what they've been telling us should be the business model all along.
Someone may argue that, since I'm selling a service, I should have no problem with giving up the code but I say to
Re:Going too far? (Score:2)
Re:Going too far? (Score:3, Informative)
If I let people use the modified software for a fee, over the net to help them design their own furniture then under version 2 I still don't have to release my changes since I'm not actually selling or distributing the software. Under this proposed version of 3 I would have to release the changes.
Re:Going too far? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How are projects meant to move to a new license (Score:2)
From 9 of GPL2: The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time.
Re:How serious are you? (Score:4, Informative)
Expect lots of deliberate misunderstandings of this concept for FUD porpoises.