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."

Comments

Not really

[dtfinch]

If they want to stick with their own GPL2 fork, they can still keep it locked up.

Re:Not really

[Richard_at_work]

I think that this is only the case if you are the developer of the original open source application.

No, so long as you take the fork from the codebase before the license change, you get the origional license. This is exactly what recently happened with Xfree and Xorg - the license changed to one that people didnt like, so a fork was made of the last known codebase with the acceptable license and further developments have been done on that, becoming the dominent fork.

What worries me personally about this amendment to the GPL is that it ceases to be a distribution license only and adds in limitations as to what you can change in the source code. The Gnu Documentation License tried doing this with invariant sections and this was declared to be nonfree by many linux distributions who then refused to carry those documents.

FUD + Dupe = Congrats

[Knome_fan]

The zdnet article is just a rehash of the onlamp interview with Stallman that has recently been on /.:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3 .html
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 9/24/1325214&tid=117&tid=156

Needless to say that you should read the actual interview, as things are a bit more complex than what the /. blurb to this story or the zdnet article want to make you believe.

Well done /.

Re:FUD + Dupe = Congrats

[aussie_a]

For the exact quote:

Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution? Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running. But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future. This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.

Thanks a lot /. for the FUD. You sure fooled me. However I do have one question: If I edit the code that has such a "command", do I have to edit the command so it displays my derivative version of the code? Or is it fine for the command to merely publish the older version?

That article is just disinformative

[Cronopios]

The information comes from this excellent interview to RMS conducted by Federico Biancuzzi, and published on OnLamp.

This is what RMS actually said:

Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?

Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.

But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.

This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.

How would it work?

If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program.

This inteview is also discussed on OSNews.

Partially

[Mark_MF-WN]

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.

Devil is in the details

[Chuck Chunder]

A simple "websites running GPL software being required to release their source code by some means" is quite scary and if it's that simple it could be quite burdensome as "running GPL software" is a very wide target.

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:

We're looking at an approach where programs used (on a public server) will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running," Stallman said. "If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program.

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.

Re:Google time....

[chrisd]

We are releasing some code, but remember that the redistribution requirement noted in the story applies to GPL v3 code, which doesn't exist yet. A lot of code won't be going to v3 (The linux kernel, for one).

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.

Re:Loophole?

[node 3]

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.

Re:How serious are you?

[naich]

This is a really interesting move by the GPL board. Its clear that the target is Google. Under GPL3 they would have a tough time not releasing GoogleOS and GoogleFS and all the other enhancements that they are working on that are still in beta.

Wrong. This part of GPL3 will only apply to web apps and only to web apps that have been marked as having to have this requirement by the developers of said web app. Google wrote the code so Google have control of the code and can decide whether to add this requirement or not.

Expect lots of deliberate misunderstandings of this concept for FUD porpoises.

Re:Google time....

[Matrix9180]

Oh really?

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Private modifications...

[hummassa]

No, the GPL never said that [the existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes]. Many, many people have said so, including some FSF personnel, but the GPL text itself says nothing of the kind. (in fact, it implies the opposite for most circumstances). If you think otherwise, go ahead and paste where the GPL says this.
You couldn't be more wrong:

(GPLv2 clause 2) [first]You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program[/first], [second]and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)[/second]

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.

Re:Google time....

[xtracto]

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?