Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL 3 May Require Websites to Relinquish Code

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the long-time-coming dept.

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."

11 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. Loophole? by Ziviyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Loophole? by Ziviyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it vastly complicates a simple ruleset that already does a great job at forbidding the unavailability of source code to applications you use.

      When this ruleset is extended partially to include recieving output of a program as a basis for the right to have its source code, the option for much worse loopholes is created. Loopholes which will terrify and drive away developers, especially when that one loophole is expanded to cover disclosure avoidance loopholes.

      Simply put, its the gateway from which a huge mess will sprawl forth. (And I'm curious how they'll handle taking a snippet of GPL3 code from an app with the upload "feature" and putting it into GPL2 code. Nevermind basic concerns about an upload feature which cannot be removed may pose as a great means to DoS a site, or the ruleset that explains throughout the various possibilities what throttling options are available and to what extent. ...etc...)

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Loophole? by runderwo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The article is a troll. What is actually happening is that GPL3 will protect server packages that already have an offer for the source code embedded in the output to the client. With previous versions of the GPL, these offers could be removed with impunity since nothing in the license required that they remain.

      Yes, obviously this can be circumvented by not distributing the modified software, such as keeping it on an in-house web server only, and then simply rejecting the GPL terms. But if you wish to distribute copies of it, you will have to leave the offer for the source code intact on any copies you make.

      This new development IN NO WAY requires anyone to release source code for a server application that they are not distributing binaries for.

      --
      LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
    3. Re:Loophole? by stuntpope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article didn't go specifically into whether this would apply to non-commercial sites. I currently develop web apps using GPL'd software for the defense department, some of which are publicly available. You know what will happen if GPL 3 says I have to have a link to "download the source of this application" on my sites? A directive that forbids use of GPL software, that's what, and hello Microsoft.

    4. Re:Loophole? by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      [RMS] has stated in the past that Free is more important than Good.
      Which demonstrates that he's an ideagogue, not an engineer. This kind of rabid, single-minded outlook is something I'd expect to be coming from a right-wing radio talk show host. The best way to make free software the norm is to make free alternatives to propriatary applications that are as good as, or better than, the products they are replacing. People use software because they want to get something accomplished, not to promote an ideology. If a propriatary tool does the job better, a smart person is going to choose it over the free alternative. Good always trumps free.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  2. Re:Google time.... by cyberformer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Asinine, but in the spirit of Free Software by ReformedExCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Asinine, but in the spirit of Free Software by TrentC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      This is, sadly, a common misunderstanding when it comes to the GPL. By using the term "infected", you are either misinformed or attempting to misinform; I'll assume the former...

      If you use code licensed by the GPL in your closed-source work and you get "caught" distributing it, you have four options:

      1. You can try to obtain an exception to the GPL from the copyright holder(s) of the GPLed code for your particular work.
      2. You can change the license of your work to the GPL (or, possibly, one of the licenses deemed "GPL-compatible"; IANAL, so consult a lawyer first).
      3. You can rewrite the affected portion to remove the GPLed code from your work.
      4. You can stop distributing your work so long as it contains the GPLed code.

      The copyright holder of the GPLed code can not force you to pick any particular one of the options (except, by the definition of the GPL, you must do #4 if you can't or won't do #1, #2 or #3). You are the copyright holder of your code, and cannot have your license changed against your will any more than they can have the license of their work changed against their will.

      Jay (=

  4. Did anyone actually read TFA? by naich · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This change would have no effect on existing software but could be added by developers to future versions of a particular program
    i.e. This will not effect existing software, only that which the developers decide to add the clause to.
    Stallman said developers may be encouraged to add a command to their GPL-licensed Web application that lets users download the source code
    i.e. it's referring to web applications, not the server, the OS or anything else.
    The inclusion of this command in modified versions of the program will then be enforced by an additional clause in GPL 3.
    All it means is if, say the developers of PHPBB decide to put a button on a page which lets the user download the code, then you cannot re-release PHPBB in it's original or modified form without that button.

    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.

  5. MIT/Berkeley license by putko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  6. Re:Loophole?!? by iplayfast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.