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."
Sounds like a sane byproduct of a sanely limited feature of the license to me.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
I'm no expert but wouldn't it be more likely that they would stick with their previous code that only has the V2 license attached? Whats forcing them to upgrade?
All existing users (including Google) would be okay, as they received Linux, etc. under the current version of the GPL. Rights already granted can't be taken away by subsequent versions.
This is just an option for authors of new code. Seems like a good idea.
If you are embedding, say, GPL md5 checksum calculator in otherwise proprietary software, will you need to publish the whole source code? If so, I'm willing to bet most companies would rather re-invent the wheel and rewrite it. I wouldn't want to publish the source code to a production web site for obvious security reasons.
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
This doesn't exactly seem much like a loophole, more a feature (It's not a bug - it's a feature!)
By closing it off, does this mean that any CMS that's using the GPL will need a link hard-coded and un-removable back to the source for it to be valid?
Anonymous Coward
There is a very strong "gimme gimme" theme that runs deep within the GPL community. It says, give me the source code you have because I want it. 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. In a very logical sense, this makes a lot of sense. We want people who use our work (GPL'd) to also be compelled to give back their work. The payment we demand is not monetary, it is to be paid in sourcecode.
So the loophole exists that someone may be able to make available a software package through an interface like the web which does not export the actual software to the client. The application, though, is absolutely in use by the client, he just can't see the source code. The user can't even request the source code (which the GPL forces the distributor to release to the asker). This is way outside the theme of the GPL, and it is not what the GPL writers had in mind when they originally (and revisedly) wrote it. The user should have the freedom to read, learn from, and change the code to the products he uses, that is the spirit of the GPL. By hiding the code and program behind the safety of a webserver, the companies exporting the application via the web interface are restricting the users' ability to do those things.
I don't support Stallman in this. I think it is absolutely the right of these companies to do this sort of thing. And I think that changing the GPL to include such egregious usurpation of rights is a blow to Free Software, both spiritually and tangibly as we will see more people decide to either stick with GPL2.0 or go with a more lenient license.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
...to the following questions:
What can we do to make sure that for profit enterprises won't ever consider using GPL3 code in any projects?
How can we best add legitimacy to Microsoft's FUD about the GPL?
I have a feeling this will do more harm than good to F/OSS usage out there.
I can't really codify my feelings into words since my examples are all licensed under something OTHER than the GPL (apache,php) but I think everyone sees where this would stiffle GPL-based software growth.
It's like saying that anyone who uses foo shopping cart (licensed under the GPL) to sell t-shirts online must now release any code changes they make to foo shopping cart just because the business uses it to sell t-shirts.
This has been the biggest FUD from Microsoft for the longest time. You shouldn't write an application to run on Linux because you'll be forced to give your code away! With this type of change, that might become fact rather than fud.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
If Google keeps the source code private, how can anyone create a derivative work ? Unless you meant Googlefight ;)...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Sounds like RMS is off on a completely wrong angle if you ask me.
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.
Read: If I take a tiny piece of code from a program that implements such a command, I will have to implement one in MY program? Gun, meet foot. I expect that within every large software project there'll be enough people who don't like it to keep it at GPLv2, perhaps even GPLv2 only. GPLv3 seems to be going overboard.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Web sites aren't being singled out, it's just that websites are a very common example of "public performance" of software without distribution.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So it's not a feature that applies to apache, the kernel or anything other than the web application itself. It's not retro-active; the developer has to add it to a newly released version and if you don't like it then continue developing the existing version without it.
This will be great for things with an MIT/Berkeley license (e.g. *BSD). The license allows you to do with the code as you please (as long as you preserve the Copyright notice) and hold the author harmless.
That's really simple.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the GPL, even among people who like it a lot. The simplicity of the MIT license makes it a no-brainer.
Also, there is some question as to whether or not the GPL is a contract or not. There is the possibility that someone could "take back' the license. As there is no apparent consideration (e.g. you didn't pay for the license, did you?), a court might say, OK, he took it back. There was no contract.
That sort of ambiguity, until put to rest, causes trouble for some.
So the MIT (modified Berkeley) license will look better than ever.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
But how do you deal with modules? As thats written, all that you can't do is change the part of the code that sends its own source, but all you'd have to do is add in your own module loader and keep your private code seperate. The source-sender knows not of your new code, and thus most likely won't be able to release it. The only ways around this would get tricky as they could just as easily leak passwords/other sensitive info.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends
Well no, it absolutely does not. The GPL covers distribution not use, if it covered use, no one would be able to use GPLed software in a commercial setting.
Closing this "loophole" would amount to drastically changing the philosophy behind the GPL.
Though I do vaguely remember reading something about the new rule being an edge case that covers rather rare circumstances, and not a reinvention of the GPL.
Seirously, taken literally this says that if I run a webapp on a GPLed server or even a GPLed OS, I have to release the source code. Yeah, that would fly.
sic transit gloria mundi
1. tell what you think "distribution" means[...] Distribution (aka publishing) WRT copyright law is the act of making a copy and selling/donating/renting it to another (legal) person.
1a. a corporation is one type of person. In some acts, a corp is represented by some employee that has permission to execute that act. For instance, my enterprise's IT manager (who has proper permission from the rules of the corporation) goes to the MS dealer and negotiates a site license for XP Pro. Who will pay the bill, the IT manager? The IT department? No, the corporation. Who is the licensee? The corporation.
2. note that if Wal-Mart[...] You have noticed you were talking about a tangible good (aprons) instead of copiable, intellectual content? (which we are discussing here) If you were talking about software, for instance, the answer would be: No, they have not distributed it (see #1 above). technically? We are talking about copyright law here, so technically, ie, legally, this does not count as distribution... because no other person is receiving the copies, just the same (legal) person.
3. What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? The copyright law. The person that bought/got/modified the software is the enterprise (acting according to its own internal regulations [*]), the thing starts to be distribution when an authorized person inside the enterprise says "hey, guys, you can take our rebranded OpenOffice.org home and install in your computer"... because then the "Enterprise" person is distributing to the "Employee" person a copy of the software. As opposed to an authorized person inside the Enterprise installing the software in a computer that belongs to the enterprise (no distribution there).
3a. [*] even when acting against corp regulations, the corporation is still liable for the actions of its employees, if others (mainly execs) take notice of said actions and do nothing about it. But this is another can of worms.
4. what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers? The fact that you would then be distributing it?
5. Which is never the case. Sure it is. When your enterprise buys a site license for XP Pro (3000 seats), the enterprise is the licensee. When your IT manager downloads Apache and installs it in an enterprise's server, with permission from the enterprise's execs, the enterprise is the licensee, because the IT manager is doing that on behalf of the enterprise.
6. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's[...] Enterprises do not have "personal" usage of nothing, only commercial, because they are commercial by nature. Anyway, even for personal use (which an enterprise can buy for an exec, for instance) XP Pro's license only permits installing in one machine.
better now?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
This is why I will either continue to use GPL v2 or add an permission to run a website without giving away the code to the GPL v3.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
The point of the GPL is to protect the users (NOT the software itself!), by giving them the freedom to modify the software they use as they see fit. A remote user is still a user!
I agree with the first part of this, however as someone who develops code for use on the web I'd say that I was the user and the people looking at my website are seeing documents that is produced by what I set up. I'm the user. The people who are looking at the web pages are consumers of my product. (the pages).
The "remote user" is not a user of the software, they are a user of the result of my use of the software. If I hadn't set it up, they wouldn't be able to see the results.
It's like requiring the plans to a printing company, and a paper factory whenever you buy a book. The manufacting info of the book is not what you are buying, just the contents.
Let's take GMail as an example. I'm an end user. I don't develop GMail; heck, I don't even work for Google at all. Nevertheless, I would prefer it if GMail were GPL v3, because then I could verify that it wasn't copying every email I send directly to the FBI, or deleting every other message someone sends me, or misbehaving in some other way -- in other words, the same thing the GPL allows me to do with a local email client like mutt or Mozilla Thunderbird.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz