Slashdot Mirror
GPL 3 May Require Websites to Relinquish Code
Vicissidude writes "At present, companies that distribute GPL-licensed software must make the source code publicly available, including any modifications they've made. Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends, it doesn't cover Web companies that use such software to offer their services through the Web, as they're not actually distributing the software.
GPL 3, the next version of the free software license, a draft of which is expected to be released in early 2006, may close this loophole, GPL author and Free Software Foundation head Richard Stallman said in an interview."
If they want to stick with their own GPL2 fork, they can still keep it locked up.
Should be able to safely call md5sum and pipe in the results.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
The zdnet article is just a rehash of the onlamp interview with Stallman that has recently been on /.:3 .html0 9/24/1325214&tid=117&tid=156
/. blurb to this story or the zdnet article want to make you believe.
/.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
Needless to say that you should read the actual interview, as things are a bit more complex than what the
Well done
I like how Stallman and Theo De Raadt both have incrmental approaches. Continually chipping away.
E.g. here's some of the latest on OpenBSD and RAID:
"Take Adaptec for instance. Before the 3.7 release we disabled support for the aac(4) Adaptec RAID driver because negotiations with the Adaptec had failed. They refused to give us documentation."
and
"But having been ignored for so long by these vendors, it is not clear when (if ever) we will get around to writing that support for Adaptec RAID controllers now. And Adaptec has gone and bought ICP Vortex, which may mean we can never get documentation for the gdt(4) controllers. The "Open Source Friendly liar" IBM owns Mylex, and Mylex has told us we would not get documentation, either. 3Ware has lied to us and our users so many times they make politicians look saintly.
"Until other vendors give us documentation, if you want reliable RAID in OpenBSD, please buy LSI/AMI RAID cards. And everything will just work."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
This is what RMS actually said:
This inteview is also discussed on OSNews.
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
I think that's only partially true. As I understand it, the derivative software will only have to allow the source code to be accessed if the original did as well. In other words, if google creates UltraSearch.com and licenses it as GPL3 AND includes a mechansism to download the source, then anyone who creates a derivative work would have to retain that mechanism or a comparable one. But if google had kept their sources private, then anyone who created a derivative work would presumably be allowed to keep their source private too. Of course, this is all confined to web-apps. Any software that is actually distributed will still have all the normal GPL conditions applying to it.
If I have an (otherwise proprietary) web application that makes a call to a GPL3'd grep command then I'd have to distribute grep to people if they asked. That sounds silly and unnecessarily burdensome and would create the sort of administrative overhead that would push people to a non-free solution.
However the mechanism Richard Mentions: seems vastly more sane. GPL3'd applications that aren't web-apps won't suddenly require distribution if they are used in a web-app, only applications coded with such use and distribution in mind will.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
None, at least to me. Both are using, not distributing.
Note that GPLv2 specifically includes limits only to distribution, not to use. In fact, you are not even required to accept it at all:
Note that there is no way to restrict usage in a license -- you need a signed contract for that. Once you have the software in question, nothing save a separate agreement can stop your rights. GPLv2 is a pure license -- it only grants rights you wouldn't otherwise have (the right to distribute at certain conditions).
I am also concerned that RMS may have problems with reality checks these days. Come on, first the GFDL and now then -- can we have the old RMS who wrote gcc and GPL back, please?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Also, I think that the open source community has to handle this very carefully, and clearly, otherwise there will be a lot of confusion around who has to post code and when. That said, we're just seeing drafts now for a license that won't officially exist until January 2007, so making any kind of substantive commentary on it is difficult.
One last thing, the web server (apache) that most people use isn't released under the GPL, so this has nothing to do with that.
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Not really. Under the old regulations, web sites could use open source software to write code that excludes open source browsers.
Granted, the new regulation doesn't really fix this (it is enough to publish source code... much of which is public anyways if it is client-side javascript), but it's a step into the right direction.
If I use modified GPL'd software to help me design furniture and I sell the furniture, I don't have to release my changes under version 2 or 3.
If I let people use the modified software for a fee, over the net to help them design their own furniture then under version 2 I still don't have to release my changes since I'm not actually selling or distributing the software. Under this proposed version of 3 I would have to release the changes.
no it doesn't
try reading it
it says you can't remove a source code downloading function if you make a derivative work, thats it
and, besides, there isn't a gpl3 yet, only some ideas
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Websites that do this don't clearly run counter to the intention of the GPL as I support it.
That's your opinion. However it's the opinions of the authors of the GPL (RMS and Moglen) who get to define the intention of the GPL. As they have found a flaw in the GPL which allows GPL licensed code to be used in a way counter to their intentions, they are taking responsibility and working to bring the GPL more in line with their intentions.
Expanding the GPL to force source disclosure to anyone who recieves the output of GPL code is absolutely unreasonable.
Believe me, they understand that and understood it long before you ever even considered that possibility, and that's why they don't intend to create that requirement.
A great deal of GPL'd software uses the recommended "v2 or later" line. It certainly doesn't force anyone to upgrade, but it has the potential for creating a great deal of confusion. I just hope that they're compatible with each other.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I can see why such a feature might be desirable for some kinds of software. For example, you might want to ensure interoperability among different web services based on free software. And, after all, commercial software vendors apply even more onerous restrictions to web-based software, such as "per user" licensing costs.
However, I think it would be a good idea to have two versions of the license, one with this provision and one without, and give them different names, say WGPL (Web GPL) and GPL. If the FSF only releases a revision of the GPL that includes this provision, I suspect many software authors will stick with the GPL2, and they'll be missing other clarifications and improvements in the GPL license.
Expect lots of deliberate misunderstandings of this concept for FUD porpoises.
120chars for a sig is teh suck
The existing GPLv2 contains a different loophole. In reading about GPLv3 planes, I haven't yet seen any effort by the FSF to close it, but I wonder if anyone else has more info.
The exploit is this:
When you modify and distribute a GPL program, you must provide the recipient the source code, in one of three ways. Either you give an "offer" to supply the code anytime in the next 3 years, or you let her download it from the same system as the binary, or you ship the source along with the binary.
That 3rd choice provides the loophole, although it requires two cooperating people to abuse it. PersonA hires PersonB to modify the program, and give him 100s or 1000s of matched discs of binaries and source. PersonA then takes out all the source discs and grinds them into powder, and then sells the binary-only discs to customers.
He's allowed to do this because of "first sale" rights, which state that someone who legally recieved a copyrighted work can redistribute it, even in damaged or partial form. The customers are buying a modified GPL program, but they didn't get the source included, nor did they get an offer to request the source later.
Note 1: To keep the loophole working, PersonA can never duplicate binary discs himself to sell. That would be copyright infringment. He must always buy new pairs of discs from PersonB, and keep on trashing the source code- although rewritable media will make it more affordable)
Note 2: PersonA must trust PersonB, because PersonB is allowed to give out GPL copies to 3rd parties if he chooses. There is no way PersonA can prevent this, except by enticement of future profitable sales.
You couldn't be more wrong:
There are two grants in this clause:
1. [marked with first] the unconditional grant to make derivative works;
2. [marked with second] the conditional grant to distribute derivative works.
This means you may modify a GPL'd program and keep your changes to you. If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
Got it? IANAL & TINLA, but I am a paralegal.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. any later version.
Read your post again for me.
Now, that means you can chose to use the GPL 2.0 terms on the software that was distributed by that license (like lets say The GIMP 2.0) or, if you like you could chose any later version of it.
Do you understand now?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
The simple solution is to leave the phrase out.
All of my (GPLed) source code has the following:Notice how that differs from the original, which states:Note that there is nothing in the GPL (v2) that prevents one from modifying the paragraph in the source code that refers to it.
That's very different to a "loophole" where the intention of the licence is extremely clear but people are using clever tricks to avoid it.
The intention of the license is very clear--it's to promote four very specific freedoms. In the opinions of RMS and Moglen, the current version of the GPL fails to ensure those freedoms in a specific set of circumstances. This is due to a loophole--a loophole not between the wording of the GPL and this specific set of circumstances, but a loophole between the intention of the GPL and that set of circumstances.
To my knowledge, the current GPL talks about copying and distributing, not using.
Copying is where the GPL applies, because it's based on copyright law. Distribution is where they chose to focus because:
1. This keeps the GPL simple (too complex and unintended consequences are more likely)
2. Distribution was the most prevalent way users became users.
Now, it's increasingly common for a person to become a user (as per the opinions of RMS and Moglen, and their opinion is what applies regarding the intent of the GPL, as it is their document) without having the software they use having been distributed to them. Therefore, in order for the GPL to more accurately address the intentions of its authors, it will need to be updated, which is exactly what they are in the process of doing now.
Indeed it would - so if I used my program to write static HTML which I then published, would this program require me to publish the source?
I'm fairly certain they do not intend this, and that the new GPL will not require this. If you read the pages on the FSF site, it will become clear that they believe users should have the right to use modified GPL'd software without distributing their changes if they so desire. Your static HTML example would fall into this category.
It's only because web surfers are, in effect, using the software that this question has come up.
If you use a program to create a static html page, you are the user. If I click a button on a web page, the program that is run by my click is now being used by me, and thus I am the user.
At least, as far as RMS is concerned, as I understand it.
What happens if I've published my code under v2 and the users everywhere decide to apply v3 to it? What if I don't find v3 particularly appealing?
I don't think it's the user who chooses which version you apply. If you develop something under version 2 with the "or later versions" clause, and I take your code and modify it, I can redistribute it under GPLv3. However, I cannot force you to make *your* version GPLv3, since yours is "version 2 or later at your option".
The way I see it, leaving the "at your option" clause simply permits other people to relicence it under a more recent version of the GPL, but it does not force you to dump the earlier version if you don't like the later one.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
The GPL, in fact, guarantees that if GPL'd software is used in another product, both products then become infected by the GPL and the resulting work is then covered by the GPL.
Keep in mind that it's copyright law that is viral, not the GPL. Any time you copy a chunk of one copyrighted work into another copyrighted work, you have created a derived work whose copyright is jointly held by both of the original copyright holders. It is illegal to distribute this work unless you have the permission of both. That's the law. In this case, the GPL'd code has been released under a set of terms which provide the needed permission in many cases but not all.
The GPL does not "infect" your code. You *choose* to place code that has some strings attached into your code. If you don't like the strings, don't take the code, but don't blame the GPL for "infecting" your code.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.