The GPL And Web Applications

eries wrote a good summary of a major problem with the GPL, with regards to web applications. Essentially, since the GPL is about 'Binary Redistrubtion', it doesn't work with web pages where the output is distributed, but the software itself doesn't have to be. Anyway, hit the link to read his comment about it. Definitely an issue that I've thought a lot about wrt Slashcode, but never found a clear solution.

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..."

Comments

This has got to be the silliest thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I've ever heard. How much sleep are you people willing to lose trying to fix everything that's wrong with the GPL? Any time you release anything as Free or Open Source software, the possibility exists for someone to grab up the code, make changes, and distribute it without releasing their code back. This has become yet another distraction for the Open Source community, which draws people away from code, and into politics. To be perfectly blunt, geeks make shitty politicians, and the more you focus on evangelism, the more you alienate those you try to convert.

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.

GPL does not cover the ASP model

[Bruce Perens]

There are a lot of different applications where you can publicly perform software without distributing it. We need to have the source distribution requirement connected to public performance or making the software available for use rather than distribution.

Bruce

Same Issue, Different Slant

[ewhac]

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

Re:Why not...

[artdodge]

I quote the GPL:

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

In fact, you _are_ wrong.

[Rahga]

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"

Re:In fact, you _are_ wrong.

[sammy baby]

I think that the binary vs. textual format you're describing is something of a red herring. It doesn't matter if a program produces HTML, TXT, or XML (all textual), or GIF, JPG, or PNG (binary). The bottom line is that they're all products of the program, not derivative of the program.

What constitues derivative works

[sammy baby]

The GPL applies to two types of things: the actual program itself, and any work based on the program. They go on to define that in the following way:

a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

With that said, I doubt that there's really much cause for concern that Enzyme (or any other web-based application) has any signifigant problems with the GPL, any more than any program in an interpreted language which produces textual output. Basically, you're dealing with three sets of items:

• The actual code which drives the back end of your application (Enzyme's PHP, and raw bits of static HTML), which is protected by the GPL.
• The data that you're archiving using Enzyme, protected by Copyright (or not, depending on who is collecting the information and the terms under which they acquired it).
• The confluence of the code and database, which produces the actual site with published information.

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.

No no no no

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

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.
--

No no no no!

[MostlyHarmless]

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.

Use a different license

[Dungeon Dweller]

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.