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!
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)
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?
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.
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.