Slashdot Mirror
The GPL And Web Applications
eries writes "We recently ran into some licensing problems for a web-based open-source project. Since our project is an OO package written in PHP (a scripting language) the GPL does not quite apply. The GPL is designed to handle "binary redistribution" for software packages, but ours cannot be distributed in binary form. That means that someone could make a website out of a derivitive work and never have to open or disclose their code - an apparent violation of the spirit of the GPL. Now, we think it might be possible to modify the GPL to construe instances of a website sending HTML to be "executed" on a browser as redistribution (more on this later), but we don't really know how to go about it. Consequently, we are forced to try and find another license. We have looked at the Artistic and the APSL, but these are both pretty dubious. Has anyone else run into problems like this? We want to write to both the OSI and FSF and bring this to their attention, so we'd like to find out of others have run into the same situation. You can also check out this related discussion on the Sourceforge forums page.
IMHO, we need a way of defining, in cases like these, what constitutes a derived work. Clearly, things like your db password and content like graphics, logos, layout, etc. are not derived works. But how can we draw the line in the case of added functionality? How is this handled in more traditional content-delivery systems?
Is the HTML produced by our scripts just output? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the application that a user is running when they use our software is not just a series of HTML files. Those files, by themselves, are worthless. Instead, their usefulness depends on an awful lot of "state" - the state of the browser (cookies, javascript), the web server, other scripts which the browser has to reconnect to, and the data in the database. The HTML files are just one component of the general state that our app produces. If you construe this more nebuloous "state" as the "binary" application that our software produces, then distributing it to a user via a web server is a non-sourced distirbution, and hence forbidden by the GPL. What do you think? I have to believe that someone running a mod_x application within an Apache server that gives access to it to tons of users is redistributing it without the source, unless you believe that clicking on "View Source" for this /. page you have access to the Slash source..."
If you're going to release your code under a license that fundamentally operates under the theory that people are honorable, you really shouldn't sweat what dishonest people may do with it.
In the case of a Web application, the binaries (or in this case the interpreted source code) execute only on the server, so the GPL does not technically require you to distribute the source code. In fact, the GPL specifically says:
So, because the source code is open (regardless of the GPL), you can run it without following the GPL at all.
The part about making modifications does seem a little odd, though. Also, this is still a different issue, since there's no binary.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
IMHO, the GPL refers to the information content. Once you transfer that GPLed information, then the recipient is obliged to allow any subsequent generation of recipient the same freedoms as every other generation, themselves included.
A "derived work" is any work in which the fundamental information is essentially (> some suitable %-age) the same, allowing for adaptations required for the audience. Any work containing less information that is the same is NOT a derived work, and the duplication falls under the "Fair Usage" clause.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That's not the point. The point is that the person using and modifying the software package never has to redistribute it - so the GPL doesn't apply. There is nothing forcing them to make thier changes available if they just execute it on thier servers.
How about this, I just got a virgin webplayer from www.virginconnectme.com. It runs linux. For starters the 6 page warranty/license booklet didn't mention linux or the GPL anywhere. The website at www.virginconnectme.com doesn't either. But merinta.com has announcments they've made about the virgin webplayer and it's Linux Operating system - but again, no way to download the source for the OS they've installed on my machine. I even tried emailing virginconnectme.com, merinta, and boundless (merinta's parent company) with a request for source code - all emails were ignored. (no reply was ever received).
Is this against the GPL?
Are all future Internet Appliances (with GPL software) going to need a GPL licencse in their manual and way to get access to the source?
Joseph Elwell.
Joseph Elwell.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This is similar to a discussion on rec.games.mud.admin late last year -- similar concept. You can take a GPL mud driver, make changes to it, and allow people to use it, but never have to release the code if you don't redistribute it.
I honestly don't see what the big issue is. It doesn't seem to be terribly against the intent of the GPL to me. The "user" of a website/mud etc. has different needs, goals, and desires than the administrator of the same, and have no need or inherent right to the admin's code changes.
If I were to modify lpd, and use it to print out an essay, would I then need to include the source to lpd upon request to anyone I gave the essay to? Absolutely not; that's ridiculous.
This falls into the same category, in my book.
Let me see if I can't clarify the issue that appears to be at hand here, as people seem to be getting mired in minutiae about what constitutes code.
The GPL outlines only those obligations pertaining to redistribution of code. If you redistribute copies of gcc, you're expected to make the source available, along with all your modifications. If you don't redistribute gcc, you're free to hack it up all you want and you don't have to share your changes with anyone.
Now, let's suppose someone decides to open a compiler farm on the net. You send it source code, and it sends back the compiled binaries. Let us suppose further still that the compiler sitting at the server is a version of gcc that has had tons of local modifications made to it to improve the code generator to at least three-fold over what you can get out of stock gcc.
Question: Does this constitute redistribution for the purposes of the GPL? The gcc binary has never left the server farm, yet gcc's output is being distributed everywhere, and the fruits of those highly-desireable gcc modifications are not being shared among the GPL community.
This appears to be the primary issue at hand. Others will no doubt differ with this interpretation, but it seems to me the GPL was intended to "isolate" software hoarders; that you are free to keep your work to yourself so long as the results/output of that work also remain with yourself. For a large class of problems/jobs, this is perfectly reasonable. But as we see, distributing services based on GPL'd software muddies the water.
It's a thorny problem.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Let's say you go to the store and buy a coke. The coke machine runs Linux. Should you get a free CD with every can? No.
Your analogy is completely flawed. Its equivalent in our current understanding of the GPL is a follows:
Let's say you create a document with MS Word. Should you get the source code to Word every time you create a document?
If the author of the software running on the drinks machine releases it under the GPL, and you modify it to power your drinks machine and then sell that drinks machine to soda distributors then yes, you should have to release the source code. If you don't distribute your new drinks machine, then the current GPL says you don't have to release the source. The question is whether or not we need a new license to prevent that.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
More correctly, you can't change it and then try to pass it off as the GPL. That'd be like tyring to take Microsoft's EULA, changing it, and then trying to say "No, look, it's still the MS EULA".
If you want to change it, you can't call it the GNU GPL. What you can do is change it, or use it as a basis for your own license, and then give the license a new name of your own. You could probably even say it's a GPL-derivative or modified-GPL license, to let people know that the license is basically the same as the GPL, but with some differences.
While technically the FSF could prevent you from doing this (since they own the copyright on the GPL), it's unlikely that they'd try anything unless you were stepping on their toes (eg. trying to call your new license the GPL).
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Can you copyright a SQL table? You apparently can patent/copyright a file format (MS ASF is).
The GPL isn't a license for use, it's a license for distribution. If they're not distributing copies of the modified work, then they're not obligated to distribute the source either.
If I'm merely using a piece of GPLed software, that does not entitle me to source code (unless in order to use it, I have been given a copy of my own). If I go to a library and sit down in front of an internet kiosk that uses Linux and Gnome for the UI, do I get a complimentary CD or an URL to an FTP site? No. No one has distributed a copy to me, merely given me access to the software.
If I make changes to a piece of GPLed software for my own use, I can keep those changes private. It's "fair use": the term that everyone throws around -- and rightfully so, IMO -- when it comes to translating a book into Braille for my blind cousin or space-shifting CD recordings by ripping them to MP3 format also applies to software (the source code, at least) that I get under the GPL.
Therefore, if you want to require that someone who is using your software publishes the changes to their code, you're going to have to use a different license. (*BSD won't cut it either, since it expressly allows people to keep their modifications private.)
(Slightly off-topic: An interesting test case for the GPL would be GPLed Java applets; since I am being sent java bytecode (which is "object code" or "executable code" or "binaries" or whatever language the GPL uses) then is the software being "distributed" to me?
That could have some important ramfications for the Java community...)
Jay (=
I quote the GPL:
... after all, the creator of a Work has the privelege of licensing their work under any license they desire, which should logically include a modified GPL...
"...but changing it is not allowed."
So, what legal position does this put KDE in, with their addition of the exception clause to the GPL explicitly allowing linkage to qt?
That, after all, is a change to the GPL.
Have folks, in an effort to fix one copyright/licensing problem, stumbled over another. It certainly appears so to me.
As an aside, I should note that I have made fair use of some portions of the GPL, GNU FDL, Open Content License, and others in putting together my Free Media License. I have the same clause, designed (as with the GPL) to prevent non-free licenses from masquerading as free licenses, but if one were to call the modified license by another name that shouldn't be an issue.
Perhaps I, and in the case of the GPL the FSF, should add a clause explicitly allowing modificatins so long as it is made clear that the modified license is not the Free Media License/GNU GPL
On the other hand, this could become a terrible can of worms for free software/media efforts, with ten million slightly different, slightly incompatible licenses floating around.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
that says any work you do on our code must be open back to the public. A "billion dollar IPO" is completely irrelevant.
I would never subject anyone to listening to Spear's crap anyway ;)
You can not prevent internal derivative works. Period.
.... Only really stupid people would agree to those terms. Smart buisnessmen would simply contract a web firm to build that stuff for them on an hourly basis if it was worth having, anyway.
Ford can't stop consumers from ripping the ugly "Ford" letters from the front of their trucks. Intel can't prevent me from pulling "Intel inside" stickers from my machines. And fscking "copying a CD for your wife to use in her car does not constitute fair use" Hillary Rosen-bitch can't prevent me from singing a duet with Britney and Lars and recording it on a tape recorder for my own use.
The only way you can hope to achieve branding on a product is by forcing your client into an agreement that says "my logos and obnoxious shit
must be included in implementations of my product that you use in your website."
Quite simply, you are selling a script. A script is code, and can be protected from proprietary redistribution under GPL... as in, if they make changes, they can't simply release it under _another_ liscence. They can release it still under the GPL though, without owing any money to you. That is why GPL doesn't work for you in what you want to do, has nothing to do with binary distribution....
I believe you simply want to "copyright" your source code in this case. As long as it falls into the "fair use" categoties of copyright law, you customers can then do whatever they want to with it up to a certain degree of internal copying. Your customers can go into and make changes for themselves, like inking notes into the margins of a book, but that's about it.
You'll never achieve what you want to do and manage to make any money off of your product.
Quit digging so deep.
Unless you get them to sign a contract or enter into a brain-dead liscence. Nobody is going to buy or use a product with the restricitons you want to put on it.
Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a product like yours without making changes internally to fit their needs. In a capitalist system, expect them to either go straight to one of your competitors or they might even hire a contractor.
It's like buying a britney spears album. Under standard copyright law, I would buy it for $18 (rhetorically). But if the packaging said "Hey, you can't make a copy of this CD for any purpose whatsoever, you can't make an MP3 of it, you can't dispose of the jewel case or the packaging, and you sure as hell can't play any part of it in a public setting where more than 2 people are present." You simply won't buy it. Neither will anyone buy your scripts if you are going to bind their hands like that.
Expecting them not to resell your product is reasonable. Expecting them not to change the scripts to fit their needs and desires is out of the question. Do it, they will _NEVER_ buy it.
Binary is meant, as far as the GPL is concered, as "executable, compiled, binary machine code."
Binary means MACHINE READABLE.
HTML is HUMAN READABLE. HTML is a human-readable format used to specify document formatting.
I can write down an HTML document on paper as easily as I can type it in a word processor.
The only advantage HTML has on computers is that, when entered in a word processor and passed through a browser, it'll enable me to look at a pretty page and links.
Yes, you can store HTML documents in binary form. But you can do the same with music. That does not mean music is binary data, not anymore than an html formatted document.
As far as "HTML generation" goes in this question, it pertains to a whiny moron who doesn't understand copyright (like most Napster users) and who wants to get a lot of money for doing very little. Most people like that are classified as "marketers"
With that said, I do not believe that running a web-based application is equivalent to redistribution-without-source, as you suggest. If I install a program on a remote computer, then open an Xterm window to interact with it on my local workstation, I haven't redistributed the initial app, despite the fact that my workstation and the remote server are exchanging all kinds of information necessary to my interaction with the application. I'm merely accessing it using another means. If that was really redistribution without source, then anyone taking advantage of the Compaq Test Drive on a Linux server would have caused Compaq to violate the GPL.
Similarly, if I set up an Enzyme driven site and open it up to the world, I haven't redistributed the code, even in binary form. I'm letting people interact with it to produce output specifically tailored for their needs, using an intermediary program (Netscape, Lynx, Mozilla, IE...) of their choosing.
While from a design point of view, it's nice that you can view all of the elements of a web-driven system - database, server, client, network - as a unified whole, it isn't. At least, not as far as the GPL is concerned. Your program rides piggyback on a web server, process requests based on the clients' requests, and transmits information back accordingly. And that's all.
Yes, you are. The issue has nothing to do with binary distributions. The guy wants to distribute some scripts that run on servers. And he wants a license that, if someone modifies those scripts and runs them on a publicly-accessible server (a public performance, not a redistribution), that they will have to publish their changes to the scripts.
GPL won't give him what he wants, and there isn't any way that taring the scripts (or whatever) is going to change that. He needs a different kind of license.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The problem is that I have a search engine.
AEIWI
Which I am considering to release as open software.
But I have the same problem with the GPL.
It only tells people to release source code for
changes if they distributate the binaries.
So, they can take my code make some of changes,
run there web service without giving back the changes
to the community.
This will give them a edge compared to me,
therefore I hesitate to take the GPL step.
I was recently a conference called Linux@work in Copenhagen (Denmark).
There I talk with Thimothy E. Ney
from the free software foundation about it.
He told me that he would have to talk
with mr. Stallman about it.
I haven't hear from him since and I have been busy too.
Maybe a way to solve this is,
that you should make the source available
not if you make the binary available
but if you make the functionality aveilable.
Knud
<>
While some people see this "loophole" as a flaw(CmdrTaco included) I see it as being a *neccesary* "loophole" if you want the commercial Internet industry to adopt open source/Free software.
Why would I use Free software for my web based application if I had to redistribute my code?
If my only means of competing right now are features, performance, database (I.E. the breadth and depth of data -- content, etc...), and marketing then this would eliminate features and performance as a competitive advantage. Not all web based companies are content-based like Slashdot: Some, like Hotmail, are based on functionality.
It just doesn't make business sense to have to redistribute your code unless your code doesn't give you a significant competitive advantage. So for sites like Slashdot it's not a problem. For sites like Hotmail, eProject.com, or wherver -- it's a problem.
My employer uses Perl, Apache, Linux, MySQL, and other such systems right now. If the licenses were changed such that we'd have to redistribute our code, we'd be forced to either not upgrade to a version under the new license, or to rewrite everything in a system that doesn't have such draconian licensing.
The ideals of the Free software movement are all well and good, but even RMS hasn't shown a viable (read: profitable) business model that fully adopts them -- and even if he could, one business model doesn't cover every idea.
-JF
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
Let's say you go to the store and buy a coke. The coke machine runs Linux. Should you get a free CD with every can? No.
The purpose of the GPL is put software back (as far as is possible) to the state of other information. Once you've been given some "information" you are free to tell other people and put any spin on it you want. So you can freely redistribute the binaries (that's the telling other people) and you have to give out the source code (so they can put their own spin on it).
But when I use a website, the only information I'm getting is what's shown on the browser. That's not to say you couldn't create a license that required a licensee to allow users to download the code--but it's not what the GPL is about.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Bison has already had to deal with this problem a long time ago. The trick is that Bison's source code is very hard to seperate, both conceptually and actually, from it's output, seeing as it's a parser that parses in input file which serves as a spec for a parser, which is generated by Bison (using a lot of recycled code...)
The intent was to give the Bison program the protection of the GPL, but to allow the output to be used howerer one pleased.
Unfortunately in my half asleep state i don't remember the details of how they pulled it off, so go and check it out before i put my foot in my mouth trying to explain it.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you sell a modified version of Emacs, you have to make the source available. You don't have to email it personally to RMS, but you have to make the source public in some way. My claim is that web site applications should not be any different. But question is what constitutes the "binary" form of a PHP program...
Of course, there's the nub of the issue: these sites aren't SELLING a modified version of anything; they're modifying the source for internal use, and using it to serve pages. Serving content - no matter what form that content takes - is not a form of redistribution of the original application. They're not trying to sell a precompiled form of the app - they keep their modifications to themselves.
The GPL has always at least given companies that right - to use GPL'd software, modify it for their own purposes, and not to have to redistribute their changes - as long as they don't distribute their new app outside of the company.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Right, but if you read it really really carefully you will notice that the origional author can impose restrictions and add clauses that the GPL would otherwise forbid. The liscence only talks about how people who recive the already liscenced code cannot add restricitons on it's freedom. Eg. Reiser's FS.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
Zend Compiler
The Zend Compiler, to be released later this year, allows code developers to compile their PHP script before distributing it. By saving the code in a closed Zend Intermediate Code format, the compiler allows developers to protect source code from copyright infringement, enabling companies to create exclusive software solutions and commercial PHP applications.
Business-oriented developers who want to enjoy the benefits of PHP scripting, without exposing their source code, will find the Zend Compiler indispensible for all mission critical business applications that must protect the source code from copyright infringement. This product provides copyright and intellectual property protection, opening the way for the widespread acceptance of PHP for business and commercial applications, where protection of proprietary information is of primary concern.
http://www.zend.com/zend/products.ph p#compiler
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
No, I don't think it's a derivative work.
Say I write a piece of C code, and compile it with gcc. Is the binary a derivative work? No.
I think there should be a new license set up for distributed output applications. The GPL doesn't really apply.
The spirit of the GPL is to allow what you are argueing about. The spirit of GPL is not you make a modification on your private copy, and now you have to release it (thank god it doesn't. Do you really want that each and every typo, bug and trial that is made by Linus and gcc developers have to be released?) The spirit of gcc is that if you distribute you have to disclose.
What you want is something that restricts usuage. GPL doesn't cover usuage. GPL covers distribution.
The closest we've found so far is the Artistic - is that good enough?
The Artistic license is poorly phrased, but has a great spirit. It's far, far loser than GPL, and explicitely allows in-house modifications. The spirit of the Artistic license is "I was nice. It would be nice if you are nice too. But there are enough loopholes in here to do what you want if you aren't nice." The Artistic license was made for Perl. Larry cares more about making nice things available than preventing people from doing what they want. And guess what? After more than a dozen years, it's very popular, and it doesn't need a scary license; people are doing with Perl what they want. And the source will always be available.
-- Abigail
Eh, no, you don't. You don't have to make the changes public in any way. All you need to do is provide the people you sold the modified version of Emacs to with the source. And only if they ask. You cannot prevent them from making the source code available, but they don't have to.
To give an example. If I make a modification to emacs, and sell it to some person X, and you ask me for the changes, I do not have to give them to you. If X asks me, I have to. X might give them to you, but as long as X doesn't give you the modified version of emacs, X does not have to.
-- Abigail
It looks to me that you do not want people to use your code as they wish. They can use it, but not make money of it, and all modifications have to be funnelled back. Doesn't that sound a lot like the original Netscape license, and Sun's open source license, before the entire Open Source community fell over them?
You want to make restricted, non-free software available. Picking a license from the Free Software Foundation wasn't the smartest idea.
-- Abigail
The fact that it also produces Javascript and SQL is irrelevant. It's still a compiler: it takes some input, it generates some machine readable output.
This is simply not true of a compiler, which is a one-time, one-output, non-interactive experience.
I guess you've never run the Configure script of Perl. ;-) Compiling often is not a one-time, one-input, non-interactive experience. Sure, it is when you all you have is a tarball, and you run ./configure;make. But if you are developping, you write code, you compile, change, compile again, change more, etc. Many times, varying input, and interactive. However, that isn't relevant. Those are just user interface details.
What do you recommend?
My recommendation is that you either keep your work proprietary, or make it free. And free means that other people can use it to make money out of it. I don't think the attitude of "here's some code, but don't dare to use it and make money with it" does anyone any good.
-- Abigail
You might think so, but there isn't anything in the GPL that suggests in that direction. There is no publication, nor a distribution of any code. Not in binary, nor in source format. Taking someones input, running the program, then serving the output is not distribution.
-- Abigail
For exactly the same reason you can modify gcc, compile a program with it, and sell the binary for mega-bucks. GPL gives you one right: that a binary comes with source (or at least, has a pointer to it). GPL does not restrict usuage. Software with usuage restrictions is not free. Freedom can be achieved by giving up your own rights, and hence increasing the rights of others. Freedom cannot be gained by demanding others give up rights.
-- Abigail
So, my question to you is, if you publish some software, someone takes your software, modifies it, and make the output available, what exactly did you lose? (And remember, to have lost something, you first must have had it).
-- Abigail
I don't think violates the spirit of the GPL. In fact, it's explicitely allowed. It looks like your program is basically a compiler. It just doesn't generate machine or byte code, it generates HTML. Same difference. And we all know that gcc does NOT produce derived works. Furthermore, I can make all the changes to gcc I want, without having to disclose anything. The spirit of gcc is that I cannot distribute anything without disclosure. But in-house, I can do anything I want.
I am not the biggest fan of GPL, but I don't see the problem here. Well, I do see a problem - but not with GPL. Apparently, you are using a license you are not happy with. In stead of trying to change the license, why don't you pick another license?
-- Abigail
That's all well and good, but we've looked at about two dozen potential licenses, and are still not closer to getting what we want. We like the spirit of the GPL. The closest we've found so far is the Artistic - is that good enough?
Can your IM do this?
I agree with this statement, but the case I'm worried about has nothing to do with internal use. I'm talking about someone making money off our code by sharing it will thousands of _external_ users. Surely that's not just internal fair use, even though my code never leaves their internal servers....
Can your IM do this?
I also posted this story over at which has generated quite an interesting discussion as well (it's still in the "moderate submissions" queue for now).
Can your IM do this?
I'm not really talking about either of these cases. We do sell a commercial product based on this code, which is not governed by the GPL but is a simple non-redistributable non-exclusive license. What we want is to be able to give away most of our code for free use so long as anyone that uses it also makes their source available for free use. We don't object to people making modifications, in fact we really want that, we just don't want one of our competitors to do a billion dollar IPO off our work without opening their code.
Can your IM do this?
Agreed, but what we're talking about here is not "private modifications" but ones that are quite public. If eBay steals my code, and makes $1 X 10^9 on it, I think they ought to at least be forced to open their code up.
Can your IM do this?
bingo.
Can your IM do this?
No, I just don't want people to redistribute my work in a non-free (or if you prefer, non-open-source) way. Isn't that what the GPL-shaman is supposed to protect me from? If not, what license should I be using instead?
Can your IM do this?
We don't want to bar anyone from using our code. We just want them to agree to open any changes to it that they make and subsequently publish. That's it.
Can your IM do this?
Would you guys be willing to make a generic version of your license (suitable for use in the US or elsewhere) available?
Can your IM do this?
let me just quote from the GNU home page:
"The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
"In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. "
Can your IM do this?
Unfortunately, this would require people to distribute sources even if they only modify it internally. This is what RMS called an annoying thorn in the side for Plan 9 -- requiring the distribution of modified versions even for internal use. Even worse, it would mean that all users have to have a copy of the source with them at all times or risk violating the license.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
I wasn't going to step in, but after seeing the amount of well-meaning misinformation, I had to say this, even if it may be too late to get moderated up.
The FS does NOT, I'll say it again, does NOT control what is considered a derivative work! This is determined by U.S. Copyright Law. It is impossible to add a clause to the GPL saying that "content generated by this product is a derivative work". It has NOTHING to do with the medium you're sending it through or any of that garbage. It has to do with what copyright law says is a derivative work.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Wasn't this exactly what RMS was ranting about wrt the license for Plan 9? He took issue with the fact that even internal modifications must be released.
Now, I think RMS is a communist egomaniac, and while I don't think requiring disclosure of internal changes is any less free than "our API is GPL infected", I do agree that it's a bad idea.
Want to make sure no one uses your software? Release it with a requirement that internal modifications must be rereleased.
The reason that people accept the GPL is because they don't think it's fair that someone can close the source, and sell a product which is mostly someone else's work, and no one else can sell that product (even the original author). Another option would be prohibiting it from being sold, but it turns out that the GPL with companies selling it is a much better business model.
Think of the analogies to other information. You write an essay and give me a copy. Should I be able to translate it to german and sell it to a magazine under my own name? No, you probably want to prohibit that, and people think you are justified in prohibiting that. Okay, now you gave me your article, and I add some comments to my own version: "look up this reference", "I don't think this is correct", "reminds me of that nut with the funny name", etc. But I don't give it to anyone. Should I be required to / do you have the right to force me to disclose those comments.
It's like buying a britney spears album. Under standard copyright law, I would buy it for $18 (rhetorically). But if the packaging said "Hey, you can't make a copy of this CD for any purpose whatsoever, you can't make an MP3 of it, you can't dispose of the jewel case or the packaging, and you sure as hell can't play any part of it in a public setting where more than 2 people are present." You simply won't buy it. Neither will anyone buy your scripts if you are going to bind their hands like that.
I can't say I'd be opposed to that particular restriction...
Bush is a cylon.
Because web based applications are not going be a big part of anything. Like the marketeers facination with "push" a few years ago, it just won't catch on.
The whole concept is based on the idea that with many users who only use the service a little bit, you can try for small usage based fees. That will go the same route as web-based email that you pay for, or portals. The barrier to entry is so low that anyone can talk a few mill out of VC and start a service that is "free for now, while we build a customer base." Soon they realize that charging people money instantly destroys all loyalty, and they'll be in the "we're exploring alternative revenue models" phase, and then they will either be bought by Yahoo or Yahoo will add the same service, and the hype will move on. That's if anybody wants to use their tool in the first place.
Web based application columnists come up with a variety of false arguments as to why they might succeed:
1) Customer's local computing power won't be up to the requirements of the software provided over the web.
Yeah, right. The network delay will be roughly equal to the longer execution time. The types of applications put forward as good candidates for this often include photo editing or otherwise require a lot of data transfer. And even the "network computers" are basically fairly powerful PCs.
2) The tasks will be things the user does so infrequently that purchasing the software is not justified, but a small fee might be.
Most of the cost of software, especially Free Software, is in learning how to use it, which you still have to do over the web. If you make it easy to learn to use, someone else will see the improvements and make the GPL'd software it was derived from easier to use.
3) I have a niche market piece of software -- only aqua farmers with seven webbed toes on their right foot will need it once every five years -- so no competition will appear. This market would be impossible for anyone else, but with web I reach every seven toed fish farmer in the world !
There's a reason why no one else will try to compete with you. Think about it. Also think carefully about why you can't reach every seven toed fish farmer with a download site for the software. What advantage does a web based app offer here ?
4) Somebody famous said "the network is the computer" at some marketing seminar I went to. I think his name was Ellison. Everybody was clapping ! He's rich, right ? And I read in Datamation that Microsoft is interested in web based apps !
Get a socially useful job like garbage collection or lettuce picking, there is no place for you in the new economy.
Summary:
Don't screw with the GPL, which is working well and changing the world. Just let these web based application providers compete the hell out of each other and gradually become another selection on yahoo, which will still make money from banner ads. Sure, some people will do nasty things with copies of the software you wrote, and some portion of the brainless masses that also run windows will fall victim to them. Don't worry about it, because those dimwits will give up the practical benefits of free software while entering a business that is completely untenable.
Actually....I would love to set something like this up. What would be really good if there was a way in HTTP to specify "don't parse this...hand it to me raw".
I would love such a thing.
Not only would it make it possible to read code, it would encourage good programming practices. No longer could people assume "This is invisible, I can be stupid and handle data insecurely and noone will ever know"
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There is no way input or output can be made to be associated with the program itself.
I think it requires you to look at things as generated. If you generated HTML output, then that is a "derivative" work if I'm not mistaken. Since it is derivative, what you do with it is still limited by the original license.
kick some CAD
Programs that use the GNU GPL but want to give the user additional freedoms have an option open in section 10 of the the GPL: exceptions. The author can add additional freedoms to the GPL but cannot add additional restrictions. For example, most KDE programs now use an exception: "You are permitted to link this program to the Qt library" that may, in fact, be granted implicitly by #includeing the Qt headers.
<O
( \
Will I retire or break 10K?
In fact I'm not even sure they can force you to only run the java code within their web page.
That would be considered the same thing (according to © standards) as framing an HTML page. The same court decisions would apply.
<O
( \
Will I retire or break 10K?
What you're asking to do is against the spirit of the GPL and the Free Software movement. The point of Free Software is to make sure that you have access to the code, so that if you want to make your own private modifications, you can do so. To ensure that is the case, the GPL requires that the software not be redistributed unless interested parties can gain access to the code. As you correctly note, that means that as long as the software isn't redistributed the modifiers don't have to distribute the source to their modifications.
What you are seeking to do is to take away some of the freedom from the Free Software, by making the user redistribute the code, even if he doesn't want to, just because the output of the code is distributed. There are a lot of practical, even ethical, reasons not to redistribute your own private mods (such as unwillingness to fork the project).
Bottom line is that as long as the sofware is free, in the free-speech sense, it's going to be perfectly valid to add your own private modifications to it and still distribute the output from running the code any way you like. Anything less, and it wouldn't be free software.
Here's an idea, just use a different license. I know that everbody wants to hop on the GPL bandwagon, but there are a lot of other licenses out there, if none of them satisfy your needs, you could just do like all of the commercial companies do and write your own, heck, if you want it to be open source, that doesn't mean that it has to be GPL. Perhaps this is a good call for an altogether new license, however, it really doesn't have to be just another GPL, it really could be a license tailored to the specific needs of either the application at hand, or of web applications that one would think fall well into the GPL.
Just because it's not GPL'd doesn't make it the end of the world, no offense.
Eh...
...or XML, or javascript, etc. Look at *BSD. Generally compiled with GCC, a GPL program, but distributed under a different license. Just because the server runs GPL software, doesn't mean that the GPL has to apply to any of the content serves. Heaven forbid the lawsuits if someone decided that they should be able to redistribute copyrighted content served up by Apache.
I don't see where the big dillemma is. We have licenses for server code, and we have plenty of flexibility with copyrighting (or not copyrighting) the content.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Say I have my apache take a pattern of data on my hard disk and turn it into a website, perhaps using php to do some more intelligent things with it.
Surely what comes out is a derivative work of the data which goes in.
If i take the source of apache, and compile it, i get:
Source -> Compiler -> Binary
and in that case the binary output is a derivative of the source (protected by GPL), no one would ever really argue that it's derived from the compiler.
Now if i say convert a bmp image into a jpeg then we have:
Bitmap -> Converter -> Jpeg
This time the binary output is again a derivative of the source, and again not a derivative of the compiler.
And now the website example:
Database Output, User Input & Cookies -> Apache & Php -> Html
The output is once again derived from the input, and not from apache.
Does that make any sense?
noahbagels wrote:
You are giving a lot of credit to judges and juries-- credit that, at least here in the States, is undeserved.I think that given a highly-enough paid lawyer, a jury here in the good ole US of A could be made to think that computers store their data on cow pies. Look at the numerous examples: Johnny Cochrane and OJ Simpson leap to mind.
Here in Florida, poor sick smokers have been awarded amost a TRILLION DOLLARS, I think, in punitive damages as a reward for their stupidity in choosing to use a LEGAL product that everyone knows will eventually kill you. Perhaps we should take up drinking Drano now so we can get in on the next gravy train!
[/rant]
Just change the GPL you use so that it refers to script as well as binary redistribution? Then you can submit the new GPL back to the GNU foundation. I mean, the GPL itself is Open Source, right? So consider this a bug fix to the GPL and go for it.
Sailing over the event horizon
I suspect you are mistaken. The output of a GPL'd program does not fall under the GPL.
Consider bison (http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/biso n.html (which has (as well as yacc) been around a while so this issue is nothing new)) which generates C code .. this is from the bison documentation:
So there you have it.
On the same token, you could use X-Windows to violate the GPL for 'net applications - I could make a proprietary modification to (for example) GIMP and convince people to run the program over the 'web with Broadway and X11R6. There needs to be a license that counts USING the program as DISTRIBUTING the program. 'nuff said.
In my opinion the GPL poorly fits server applications. Take for instance a MUD. If I were to write a MUD and distribute it GPL'ed, in my interpretation of the GPL anyone can take that MUD and change it and run it without having to distribute modified source, unless of course they decide to distribute modified binaries. In this case the MUD administration gets the advantage of profitting from my hard work, and furthermore they can do anything they want with my hard work and never give back to me or the community. The only thing they have to refrain from doing is passing out the binaries to anyone, which is exactly what you would want to do in a competing market.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!