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?"
So, the question IS an easy one, but you're on the wrong path.
From my understanding, if someone installs GPL software onto more than one of their own machines then they are distributing it and need to publish the source. This should apply to leasers and device distributors.
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.
Damn this kind of stratification, but if it does exist, put free software users at the top of the pyramid, where we belong.
Read closer: "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." (Emphasis mine.)
I.E., the renters are the bottom layer, and the Free software users are at the top where you want them.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
I'm not sure how you can make this comparison (i.e. free software users don't like shiney interfaces, etc). Are you implying that people pay to use gnome and KDE and the rest of us that don't pay only use CLI? How about the fact that almost everything released these days is skinnable? Mplayer, XMMS, Mozilla, etc... I'd consider being skinnable to be "shiney and flashy". Furthermore I don't think anyone likes bugs. Whether people like bloat or not is debatable. Some people like their software to be feature packed. There are certainly a lot of utilities for making config files easier. There are utilities to help you build things like iptables rules and yes even apache config files.
Free software is a methodology for its licensing. If Microsoft were to suddenly release all the source code to their software under the GPL, would all subsequent users who downloaded and installed free-windows and free-office not be free software users?
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.
This would be bad precedent. Normally the output of the program is not covered by the liscense of the program itself. By making the output of the back end system (the html "page") grounds for new rights this would turn things upside down. Now as an example you are given a Gimp produced photo should you have access to any modification the producer has made to the Gimp?? I would say no. The fact that you have access to the output of the program should not give you any rights to the program itself, giving you results is not the same as distributing the program.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
-A.M.
Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
You have to give the source to the people you give your binaries to. So if you give your binaries to yourself (or your other machines) you only need give it to yourself... :)
The GPL places absolutely no restrictions on a user: a user is someone who runs the program and gets a result.
The GPL only restricts someone who wishes to modify or distribute the program, which is not something that a user normally does.
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.
So our disagreement is on the definition of ownership. I see the ownership of a copy of information to be the same as ownership of information. I don't believe that information has some Platonic form over which ownership can be defined.
If I have possession of some piece of information, I can do anything I want except the things that copyright law reserves for the copyright holder. The law does not enumerate what rights I have -- it simply restricts the rights I would normally have over my property.
If I own a piece of land and the law says that I can't build a commercial structure there, it doesn't change the fact that I still own it. Laws generally do not list the things that you can do with property. Instead they list things you cannot do. Anything else is fair game.
Laws surrounding possession of information seems to follow these same rules. This is why I say I own the information that I purchase.
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