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

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.

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.