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?"
If it's GPLed, you can just get the source somewhere else, right? What's the issue here then?
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)
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
I don't know if it's as simple as that. What is the nature of renting? I would think that if I were to rent a DVD to someone, it would be considered a temporary transfer of license. So while they are renting, I don't have the right to use that copyrighted material. Now in the case of the GPL, if you were to "rent" GPL software, nothing prevents them from copying it and re-licensing it to themselves or friends.
IANAL, blah blah...
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
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.
OTOH, if leasing is physical distribution of the software under some sort of license, then I suppose the GPL would apply.
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.
> 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.
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.
No, you're wrong. If I have 100 PCs and I want to put my own custom hacked linux kernel on all of them, I'm perfectly allowed to do so, without releasing the source. I'm just not allowed to offer binaries to the general public (unless I also make the source available too).
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
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...
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.
1) Take router - i386 tiny board.
2) Put on Linux kernel + Busy Box + uClibc
3) Put on closed source, linked against uClibc application that contains in itself no GPL Code.
Question: Does source for that closed source application have to, in any way, be provided under the terms of the GPL ?
As far as I understood it, the ONLY things that would HAVE to be provided would be a CD with the Linux Kernel, Busy Box, and uClibC, should someone ask for it.
(plus any changes you made to the above source)
Is this wrong thinking ?
It seems like a lot of people out there are handing out lots of FUD that is preventing developers from using a perfectly good platform for their embedded systems.
Or am I the one spreading the FUD, and in fact, in the above senario the closed source software would have to be given out, destroying the posibility of Embedded Linux from every being used in any commercial product using generic hardware
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
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????