GPL 3.0 to Penalize Google, Amazon?

Michael Ferris writes "Is this the start of a shakedown by the GNU folks? Michael Singer writes that Eben Moglen and the folks rewriting the GPL are looking at a proposal where companies would be required to pay money if they use GPLed software, even if they don't redistribute the software." From the article: "The current version of the GPL, which was last updated in 1991, fails to trigger the open source license if a company alters the code, but does not distribute its software through a CD or floppy disk...the [current] rule does not apply to companies that distribute software as a service, such as Google and eBay, or even dual-license companies like Sleepycat."

Comments

They deliver HTML.

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

the [current] rule does not apply to companies that distribute software as a service, such as Google and eBay

Google and eBay distribute HTML. That HTML is created by software that uses GPL code. So if I modify a GPL Office Suite, would I have to distribute the code if I email someone a document I made with it? Seems like a bad idea, in general.

I guess people could fork the GPL2.0'd code if the software developers switched to GPL 3.0

This doesn't sound like a good idea

[dtolton]

I think requiring companies to pay is a big time mistake, and to me, it
hails back to the days of the old BSD style licenses. The GPL works
so well now, precisely because it is unobtrusive. My company runs
GPL'd software because we are able to use it and make modification
without either redistributing the source code and we aren't required
to pay for that ability.

Requiring people to open all their changes or pay for them will put a
lot of businesses off when it comes to dealing with GPL'd software. I
don't think that is a good trade off to make, and I don't think it
will be healthy for the open source community in general.

A move like this will make the newer BSD style licenses and / or
licenses like the Python license much more attractive imo. Now that
open source is finally turning the corner, and solid technologies are
finally moving into the enterprise, why would we even entertain making
changes that will certainly hamper open source adoption?

This isn't a consistent position in my opinion. If you are
developing free software, it should remain free. The idea that you
can get someone hooked on software, and then pull the rug out from
under them and start charging them is ludicrous. If this were to
happen, I can honestly see a major fork in the GPL happening.

Horrible implications.

[FreeLinux]

Just the implication of this terribly and inaccurately worded headline will be devastating to open source. This article is intentional flamebait. Zonk, please try to be a bit more responsible with the articles you post.

Regardless of what GPL 3.0 turns out to be, developers are not forced to use it. They can continue to use GPL 2 if they wish, just as they can choose to use a BSD license, Apache license, creative commons, or any other license of their choosing. Furthermore, software that has already been released under GPL 2 cannot be retracted, it remains available under GPL 2 forever.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[ajs]

A few points for sanity here:

1. No one can force a company to abide by the rules of a new version of the GPL for software the currently have under an old version. They can CHOOSE to apply the new version IF the author used the standard boilerplate license notice, but they can also CHOOSE not to
2. The article specifically states that there is no GPLv3 and they're not officially comenting on what they are considering for it when it does come out
3. The guy commenting is saying what he would like to see so that he can drop his unique license. That's fine, but it's not official word
4. If this were to happen in the doomsday sense, everyone woudl immediately fork old copies of the programs that they have the option to apply the GPLv2 to, and continue to maintain and license them as such.

The GPL must change or die.

[raehl]

Google and eBay allow end users to run programs on Google and eBay servers that create HTML for the end user. If I go to Google and do a search, INPUT occurs on my computer, PROCESSING occurs on Google's computer, and OUTPUT occurs on my computer.

That's not the same as you distributing a document you created. In that case, INPUT occurs on your computer, PROCESSING occurs on your computer, and OUTPUT occurs on your computer.

The question is: What's important in determining if a program has been "distributed"? Clearly if I give you a CD with the program and you run it on your computer, I've distributed the program. Clearly if I take GPL software and modify it and I run it on my computer only, I have not distributed the program.

But if I take GPL'd software, modify it, and then let YOU run it on my computer...

Did I distribute it, or not?

Your immediate answer is probably "Who cares?" But now what if I charge you to run this modified program on my computer, for example, by charging a fee if you use my auction program? Now I'm using software provided by the open source community for my financial gain, but not returning the modifications I made to that software to the community.

The extreme of this problem is that eventually, the internet becomes so fast and clients become so dumb that software is never "distributed" at all. I take an open source office suite and then modify it. According to the GPL, if I then sell that software on CD, or by download, so that people can actually run it on their computers, I must provide the source to it as well. But what if I'd rather just make money off of the GPL'd software I've taken without giving anything back to the community?

Well, then I just put the software on my own server, and instead of selling CDs or downloads, I let people provide input and receive output over a remote connection to the program running on my server.

And wala! People can modify and essentially provide GPL'd software without having to provide source.