Slashdot Mirror
GPL and Leased Software?
LordByronStyrofoam asks: "In the body of the article linked in the recent Silicon Valley Has Learned to Love the Bust, Salesforce.com and IBM were said to be planning to lease or rent software. IBM did this for many years back when they controlled the big iron market. It reveals a bottom layer in the cultural strata of software users: those who use Free Software; those who click through EULA's and the associated closed-source licenses; and the lowly renters. Do renters of GPL software have no rights under the GPL? Is this situation similar to the one where the makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to provide the source, even though the devices are based on embedded Linux?"
The Ask Slashdots just keep getting easier.
sulli
RTFJ.
Given the name of the place, you would think they'd done this years ago!
in the "cultural strata" of software users - those who use Bonzi Buddy.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
If it's GPLed, you can just get the source somewhere else, right? What's the issue here then?
or clarification of the term "distribution"
I'm gonna call the manufacturers of all my embedded stuff now. Wasting company time is a great hobby, I recommend it for everyone.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
It reveals a bottom layer in the cultural strata of software users: those who use Free Software;
Okay, that's just not true. Is there a "caste" system for software users? I would certainly hope not, to create one would be a pointless and self-indulgent intellectual exercise.
But even if there were to be such a thing, would free software users belong at the bottom? Some would say yes, because they're cheap. But if you think about it, actually free software users require a lot more from their software.
We don't like bugs. We don't like bloat. We don't like giving up control of our files in exchange for shiney, flashy interfaces. As a result, very few softwares (like Apache for instance) meet our standards.
Damn this kind of stratification, but if it does exist, put free software users at the top of the pyramid, where we belong. You can put the braindead 12 yearolds downloading from Kazaa at the bottom.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
The GPL covers distributing the original owner's code. Legally speaking when you give a representation to a copyrighted work, you are distributing it to them, no matter by what means or how you are compensated in return. (This is why music services have to get permission from the copyright holder to use a CD in their playlist.)
There is no story here.
With any copyrightable material, you never actually own it, you only own the media. The GPL difference is that you are allowed to redistribute the source, not just the media. It's the license that enables it. Just by being distributed, you are entitled to a copy of the source. The only question left is, do you have to turn the source back in once the rental period ends? No, because the GPL makes no such distinction. The very fact that you are allowed to redistribute the source makes it impossible to put a time limit on it.
Infuriate left and right
From 17 USC 106: "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;"
So, that would be distribution, and would need to happen under GPL terms.
fundamentally, is very simple.
This issue, I'm sure, will get clouded beyond reason, by those who are going by what they think the GPL is about rather than what it says.
When you make a work based on GPL code, the following can be said, logically:
The first law in question is: Copryight
Under copyright law, do I have permission to "lease" copies of software that I do not hold the copyright to, to others? No, I don't. Why? Because that requries making COPIES, which I am not allowed to do under copyright law (other than fair-use.. which this certainly isn't)
So.. that iother avenue is open? Well, the software is covered by the GPL.. so that lets you do some things normally reserved for the copyrgiht older....
It clearly states that you cannot distribute copies to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL. As another poster said, the GPL does not cover "ownership", it covers copying & distribution. This is not about who owns software... you can't say "well it's still ours, we are just letting you borrow it".
So in short:
Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder.
The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.
It's very clear cut.
The GPL covers binary distribution clearly. If you distribute binaries from MODIFIED SOURCE you are obligated to include the modified source.
Renters do not receive distribution.
Case in point: I run Linux, to serve web pages that are dynamically constructed by Tomcat and Apache. Where is the distribution of GPLed software happening in this scenario? I simply rent managed database storage, and provide the web interface.
Surely the GPL was never intended to cover undistributed modifications, or else the Microsoft FUD would be true.
I've often wondered - what is a website's distribution? If a website (say, sourceforge) uses GPL'd software, and I use it, am I entitled to the source?
are those who write their own stuff!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Is this situation similar to the one where the makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to provide the source, even though the devices are based on embedded Linux?"
This is false -- people who make embedded devices using GPL software must make available source code to that software.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
http://www.gldialtone.com/GPLsvcs.htm
The Free Software Foundation has confirmed that there is nothing in the GPL license restricting anybody from charging access fees to a server running GPL software. Is this a business opportunity or what?
Silicon (as in microchips) is not the same as silicone (as in artificial boobs).
You're confusing the GPL license with the BSD license.
;)
Not that it has anything do with your question except the phrasing of it.
To make a long story and a potential flamewar short;
GPL is about making the software free, and imposing restrictions on the user while BSD is about making the user free to whatever they want with the software, including adding restrictions.
Mod me a troll if you want, but remember that the Metamoderators will prove me right!
I'm too stupid to preview.
I got to this article from Google News. Does anyone know if Slashdot had a big increase in traffic because of this?
"That Instant Karma gonna get you!"
This analogy doesn't work with software at the current time, when you consider the "poorest" of the operating system citizens weilds incredible influence. I liken the current political atmosphere of software to a popular revolution, not to a long standing judicial tradition.
OTOH, if leasing is physical distribution of the software under some sort of license, then I suppose the GPL would apply.
GPL'd software runs on proprietary layers (Intel).
The GPL is great, but it only protects some freedoms, not all of them. The answer is easy: if you want source, don't rent.
I believe that the FSF has already said that there is nothing wrong with not distributing GPL code to users of a server providing GPL software. Or something to that effect.
I know one company which does this - Qualsys have this vulnerability scanning system which scans your computers for potential security threats, but to get it through most corporate firewalls tehy allow customers to use a special box on the inside of their firewall. This runs their scanner software and is locked down so that users can't see the software on it, but they provide a list of all the GPL components and will provide them in line with the spec. The boxes are basically useless unless you've signed up for their service so they're effectively rented, but, they make great efforts to comply with the GPL.
-A.M.
Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
The GPL clearly states that the act of running the program is not covered, and the OUTPUT of the program is also not covered.
So.. if you are not running the software, and it's not being distribute to you, but instaed, you are only permitted to interact with it, you have no claim to anything.
When you purchase a software license you are usually allowed to transfer it to someone else. If you lease software, you are temporarily transferring the license. That works fine for any license that allows transfers.
Of course if you transfer the GPL license, then the person receiving the software is allowed to make as many copies as they want and distribute them under the terms of the GPL.
As a funny aside, in an attempt to give less money to Microsoft (this is a big theme there), IBM doesn't purchase software licenses from Microsoft for individual employees. Instead, employees sign them out of a library for a period of a few months. At the end of that time they either renew the copy or return it. I doubt it saves them any money, but IBM has had a grudge against Microsoft ever since the world settled on Windows instead of OS/2.
> Do renters of GPL software have no rights under
> the GPL?
I've never seen a software rental agreenent that would not be in direct violation of the GPL.
> Is this situation similar to the one where the
> makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to
> provide the source, even though the devices are
> based on embedded Linux?"
Can you provide some support for the claim that such a situation exists?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Well, you are allowed to trasnfer a license to someone else unless the license says you are not.. which is the case more and more often nowadays.. and always has been the case with really big software licenses.
The GPL says you are not allowed to distribte to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL.. and saying "You have to give up your rights under this license in 30 days" is a violation of the GPL, as it does not allow additional restrictions.
That thing about IBM is really cool...
The GPL only requires you to provide source to those who you provide binaries to. There is no obligation (under the GPL) to provide source (or binaries) to anybody and everybody. Only those who you distribute binaries to.
So if you give binaries to User A, you must also provide source to User A (or make it reasonably available). You're under no obligation to give User B or User C anything at all.
However, under the GPL you cannot prevent User A from giving B or C copies of binaries and/or source.
right side 1/4 way down...
cool
Troll, people? Who modded this as a troll?
Some moderators need a loving slap to the head. Metamods, take note!
There is a special version of the GPL called the Affero GPL for ASP software that is not distributed. The rather kludgy solution is that the software is required to regurgitate its own source on command, over the net! This problem will be further addressed, hopefully in a more practical fashion, in GPL 3.
Bruce Perens.
Here's an interesting article from 2000 written by someone who actually had a dialogue with RMS about the subject.
It actually links to an even older Slashdot article about the same subject.
The basic story was a developer wanted to release his product as open source but didn't want to see someone grab it, set up a competing site and not have to share code.
That story links to a SourceForge.net forum thread which is now offline, or at least "restricted to members of this group" (?). I believe they had similar issues back when they published their code.
In the end, looks like nothing was ever resolved...
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder.
The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.
That tells me nothing about current IBM practices.
Suppose that I'm leasing an IBM kernel that's under the GPL and I decide that I don't need IBM at the end of my lease term. In theory, I own the software because I have the source and compile it on my onw, not to mention the fact that it still works. What nasty tricks does IBM have to keep me hooked and paying them besides their great expertise? As a user who would be free, what do I have to do? Breaking a lease is a mater of contract law and you just don't do that. What if my business grows and I decide that I want to duplicate the free software I'm leasing and someone can do it cheaper and better than IBM? Has IBM loaded my set up with indespensible pieces that are restricted?
The problems I'm rasing are purely speculative. IBM may be upstanding and competitive enough to survive on their merit alone. They may have full confidence that the value they add to each customer's business is fully worth their price. If this is the case, they should have no problems with any provision of the GPL and the way they charge for their work is their business. Up front, spread out in a "lease" whatever. If they load their software with propriatory chunks of non-free code that they can yank at anytime, well let they buyer beware. Users of non free code have those kinds of problems.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That's the positively-spun way of putting it. In the interest of balance, here's a negatively-spun take on the same issue.
According to the GPL, software is, as thought, not something which can be "owned". As such, withholding it from the public is tantamount to stealing, and therefore it prohibits you from doing so. The BSD license basically lets you do whatever you want, including stealing the code from the public domain.
I would prefer to GPL my own software, simply because if I want to give my code to the masses, I don't want others stealing it away from them. But to each his own, I guess; if you're really that trusting of humanity, or if you simply don't care, then knock yourself out.
I think it'd be a bad idea to restrict it...but there is one thought in my mind.
If client/server software catches on and reliable broadband becomes universal, all companies need to do is provide a thin client running something like X or VNC or something higher level and never distribute any binaries.
May we never see th
Don't care what anyone says.
Renting software is a ripoff.
Specially now that OSS and cheap powerful
hardware is here.
First, what point of mine is it you are disputing? It's not clear
Second, the GPL is absolutely NOT an EULA. IT even states right there in the GPL it is NOT A USE LICENSE. It does not cover the usage of the software at all, and you do not have to accept it to use the software.
The GPL is a license that grants you permissions above and beyond what you are allowed to do under copyright law.
I'm not sure what point you are disputing.. what you say about how the GPL works with reference to the original copyright holder of the code is true.. but what's that got to do with the issue at hand? We're talking about people taking GPLd code, and leasing it (or modifications of it), and whether or not that's valid/possible.
Obviously the original author can do whatever he wants.
And actually, your comment about "Not accepting patches" is not entirely correct either; if you submit a bugfix to my code you do not automatically become a co-author, and I am not necessarily bound to keep that code under the GPL unless you licensed it to ME under the gpl for inclusion in my project. That of course depends on the amount and type of code presented, and the temrs and conditions all parties agreed to (or did not discuss). If you submit code to my project, and the email says "here, this lets your code do blah blah on newere kernls".. I could assume you were just being nice and giving it to me.. I am not bound to keep your code under the GPL.
YOu will notice many major open projects using the GPL as a license stipulate that copyright on the patches submitted for inclusion are transferred to the project owner/group, and not held by the individual.
The GPL was never about keeping all code free.. just stuff derived. Code covered by it is permitted to be part of a collection of code alongside other stuff; IBM can lease you a system, and as long as the parts that are required to be covered are covered by the GPL and IBM does not have additional restrictions on THOSE parts, they have met their obligations to the letter AND INTENT of the GPL.
Note also that if you sell someone GPL'd software you cannot then ask them to return the souce code if they return the product to you for a refund. Any kind of returns policy you try to apply to the GPL'd program is invalid because the GPL does not allow one to specify additional restrictions on the use of the software.
:-)
This is a great way to piss off those Linux based device vendors. Buy the device. Demand the source to the GPL'd software embedded in the device. Once they curse you and send you the disks. return the hardware for a refund. Free Linux! Woo! Hmm... that's funny... these are RedHat ISOs...
This way, if someone needs to modify the software and/or if the company that made it goes out of business, a copy is available in a central place such that anybody can obtain it and continue to use it. Also, the company wouldn't have to worry about making released code available because it already is.
The FSF would be the perfect organization to set up this kind of system, considering that the license was their idea anyway. But if someone else sets up such a thing, that would be cool too. The important thing is to mirror the archive.
Apache isn't under the GPL, so it's kind of moot :)
This question in general is pretty old, and I don't think I've ever seen it get a real answer. It'll probably take a courtroom to decide for sure.
If I were the FSF legal counsel, I would probably try and get the newer GPL versions to take this into account (but I'm not, and RMS may actually leave that loophole for a reason, but I doubt that).
You are confusing the computer discussion with the legal discussion. We generally talk about linking. The law is actually clearer it talks about "derived work". In terms of linking a work would be derived if it could not stand on its own.
So for example Debian legal held that KDE because it required QT was a derived work of QT. Had the harmoney (I think that's what it was called) project, to create a LGPL version of QT been succesful that status of KDE would have been different and then it would not have derived.
In the case of an embedded application I'd assume the software itself is not derived because you could run it not linked however the actual embedded device containing the software (where everything is statically linked) would be a derived work of the GPLed application.
So at least IMHO it isn't gray, not distributing the source for the embedded app if you sell the device and not just the software puts you cleanly in the black.
If renting is not "distribution" as the GPL defined it, you can essentially circumvent all of GPL's requirements when you distribute software by saying you're only renting the software to the end user for an indefinite period of time, or until the year 3003 etc.
First, let me state I'm not talking about any code distirbute by ti's authors; authors are not bound by any license; they own he code outright... so any discussion about what they can and cannot do with the GPL is irrelevant.
Where did you get the idea they cannot charge you for software? The GPL says nothing at all about whether or not you can charge for software.
I can take the linux kernel, modify it, and sell copies for $50,000 a pop.
The GPL lets me do this as long as I provide them with source (or equivalent access to the source, as with binaries distributed via ftp or over the web, or a witten offer to give them the source for no more than a handling fee, valid for up to five years).
The problem is in the "leasing" part... you cannot distribute GPL'd code without doing so under the terms of the gpl, which means you have to offer others the source, under the same terms (not more restrictive ones). So you can't prevent them from exercising their rights under the GPL (which you have to offer them, because nothing else gives you the right to distribute the software)
Please, please, realize the GPL is NOT about "getting software for free". There are NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER on commerce.. the main stipulation ist hat if you give someon binaries (be they from sale, free, loan, etc) you are required to license the source to those binaries to them under the terms of the GPL.
They arn't really "renting" the software. They are having someone install, configure, and support software and they pay a time based fee. Same deal diffrent words. The distro might be free but if my ass comes to yo house and installin it and you expect me to answer questions then yo payin!
Someone lends you a copy you have to return it because you don't own the media. Yet you can copy it at will. So basicly buy the media and it is yours. Rent the Media you can copy it.
Stop shouting junk the law is verry simple.
So you rent it to me for a week. I copy it and give it back you have no legs to stand on since the coping was legal.
They're renting cpu time, drive space, backup tapes, techs to keep everything running and reasonably secure, bandwidth, physical security, hardware wear and tear and so on. I run Apache, Mysql, PHP, on Linux box and I host web and email. Do you think I have to give everyone who hosts a website or an email account with me the source code to every GPLed piece of software they use that's installed on my machine? Maybe you also think I should send them a copy of every copyleft howto I've read to figure out how to make it all go?
Quick answer No
Long answer Nope
It's real simple.... I provide a service and they pay me every month for that service.
Microsoft EULA
They rent you parts of a book. You agree to not allow anyone else to look at the book. If you stop paying you get to keep the book parts but can never open them again. Microsoft can change what the book says whenever they want. You cannot sell your book parts even when you're finished with them. You cannot change the words in the book even to fix spelling/punctuation errors. Microsoft can change the terms of the agreement whenever they like... you cannot. The BSA goons can walk in with their government law enforcement lapdogs and make you drop your pants for an audit whenever they like. Don't loose those receipts!
Regular Proprietary software
"They" sell you a copy of a book. You can read the book for as long as you want. You may not let anyone else read the book unless you agree to stop reading the book. Sometimes you may edit the book but you cannot ever allow anyone to read the edited version. The BSA goons can walk in with their government law enforcement lapdogs and make you drop your pants for an audit whenever they like. Don't loose those receipts!
GPL
You own a copy of the book. You can make as many copies as you want. You can sell or give away as many copies as you want. You can completely rewrite the book, however If you edit the book and give it away or sell it you must include your edits and you must pass these same rules along to anyone who gets your copy of the book. You must also give credit to the original author(s) of the book. The original author(s) of the book can change the agreement at any time but you can refuse to accept any changes in the agreement with your edition of the book. The BSA can go to hell and you can burn any receipts you may or may not have aquired.
BSD
You own the book. You an do whatever you like with the book except remove the credit of the original author(s) but so can everyone else. The BSA can go to hell.
Public Domain
You own the book and the idea behind the book but so does everyone else. You can claim it as your own and can do whatever you like but so can everyone else. The BSA can go to hell.
The GPL is the only license (mentioned here) that requires you to give something back if you distribute the software. In my opinion that's why it's the most morally correct. The GPL is why I'm a Linux fan even though I feel the BSD's are still superior in most ways. Microsoft's perversion of Kerebos would not have been legal under the GPL.
G
or linking against gpl licensed libraries?
i'd guess the router people developed their own networking and security libraries for their embedded platforms (modified BSD code, for instance).
if they just use an existing port of the linux kernel (or publish their changes) and make their propietary api's loadable kernel modules (with the rest of their software in user space) i don't see where the
gpl issues are.
--TRR
1) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at my own premises for my own purposes: No need to share the source.
2) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at my own premises and allow customers to use the services provided by the code: No need to share the source.
3) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at a server farm: Do I need to share the source? Think not?
4) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at a server farm and allow customers to use the services provided by the code: Do I need to share the source? Think not?
5) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at customer premises and allow customer to use the services provided by the code: Do I need to share the source????
Yes, it is, and that is why I used it as a point for my example.
It is to bad that some developers are staying away from linux because of this scare over the GPL. (like the post a few down under the parent thread)
As long as you pay attention to the license of the software you use, (Which you should do no matter WHAT software you use) Linux can be just as good (or IMHO Better) than any WinCE fully closed source solution.
As an added bonus, I get to use some of my teams resources to help improve the underlying base GPL/ LGPL software with bug fixes and additions to it.
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
BTW I really think you should get a /. account. You are making excellent points and addressing issues really well. Often AC's won't get responded too and that's a pity in your case since you definitely are saying worthwhile things.
Anyway onto the main point. I misunderstood you when I responded to you the last time, now I understand your point. I should mention it appears that Linus agrees with you as well as he starts his license with the following disclaimer
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
i.e. he seems to be arguing that under the normal GPL a particular form of dynamic linking which is certainly rather weak (using system calls) might very well require the calling program to be GPLed and so he specifically allows this. Given this is probably about the weakest form of dynamic linking (not substantially different than writing a shell script) and even here Linus felt it neccesary to at least specifically allow it.....
Basically it seems the Linux license is a sort of LGPL not a full GPL license. For a fully GPLed system (like KDE) it seems that just about any kind of linking would be a problem.
It hard to imagine an embedded system running on top of KDE (right now) but it would make for a very interesting test case if KDE choose to go after them.