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?"

Comments

Distribution includes leasing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:GPL v3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the law clear enough? US law says distribution already includes leasing.

Embedded device makers must provide source

[prizog]

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.

Re:Embedded device makers must provide source

[whoever57]

Yes, they must provide source, but only source of programs covered under the GPL. Most likely, the code that is in the embedded devices is a mix of GPL code aggregated with CSS code.

So, yes, you can demand a copy of the source, but all you will get is a cut down GNU/Linux, without the CSS code added by the manufacturer.

Of couse there is also the possiblity that the manufacturer has combined their code with GPL code and in this case, they must give you all the source, including that which they would consider closed, proprietary, trade secret, etc.

FSF take on it

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Ob. Boring Engineer comment

[bullestock]

Silicon (as in microchips) is not the same as silicone (as in artificial boobs).

Re:What about websites?

[Chris Burke]

Another easy one, answered by the GPL:

"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."

When you visit Sourceforge, what you see is a web page, which is the output of their content software. The web page is not a derivative work of that software, therefore not covered.

Which is just common sense: The copyright covers the Program, and the output of the Program isn't the Program, unless of course it is. :)

Re:Hmm...

[John Hasler]

> Sure you can get the same source I got, but that
> doesn't mean you can get the modified source that
> created the binary you leased from me.

The owner of the source that you modified can require you to comply with the GPL and give me the source. His license to you (the GPL) permits you to distribute his work only under the terms of the GPL. By distributing it under your lease you are violating that license.

Re:Hmm...

[Bruce Perens]

Nope, you'd still be obligated to disclose the source in hardware that is rented. The software's still being distributed. The form of the financial transaction doesn't matter.

The GPL requires the person who distributes the binary to distribute the source (especially if that is a commercial distribution). It is not legal to pass that obligation off to some public web site not affiliated with the people who distribute the binary.

Bruce

You're confusing two different things

[Bruce Perens]

You are confusing two things: providing software as a service, is not the same as renting software. When providing software as a service, the software may not leave your site and may not be on a machine that is accessable to me - I just use it over a web interface. In this case, you may be said not to be distributing the software to me. This is the "ASP problem" with GPL 2. If you rent me a piece of software at my site or by placing it under my control, you're distributing the software and GPL 2 applies just fine.

Bruce

Re:GPL v3?

[NDPTAL85]

Patience.

We're working on it.