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

Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it.

[MisterFancypants]

But the GPL says nothing about "ownership", it covers DISTRIBUTION. So if you distribute the software to the renters, they have full GPL rights. Renting, buying, ownership..doesn't matter.

So, the question IS an easy one, but you're on the wrong path.

The GPL

[mindstrm]

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.

Re:Inflammatory

[OECD]

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.

Re:What about websites?

[afidel]

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.