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.
Given the name of the place, you would think they'd done this years ago!
If it's GPLed, you can just get the source somewhere else, right? What's the issue here then?
or clarification of the term "distribution"
I'm gonna call the manufacturers of all my embedded stuff now. Wasting company time is a great hobby, I recommend it for everyone.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
OTOH, if leasing is physical distribution of the software under some sort of license, then I suppose the GPL would apply.
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.
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...
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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