Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL and Leased Software?

Posted by Cliff on from the tricky-licensing-issues dept.

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?"

5 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Distribution includes leasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Embedded device makers must provide source by prizog · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  3. FSF take on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  4. Re:Hmm... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    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

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  5. You're confusing two different things by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
    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

    --
    Bruce Perens.