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."
And we've known this for how long? Granted, the story itself isn't a dupe (afaik), but every article on the GPL3 in the past few months has mentioned the idea of websites running GPL software being required to release their source code by some means. It's hardly news.
That might make life interesting for Google (and probably Yahoo) as I'd bet a large chunk of googles operations are based on FOSS code including their clustering software, mail etc.
While I can see the point of making distributors in the conventional sense having to release the source I've a nasty feeling making web service companies reveal their source might only harm the OSS movement in the longer term... Google might be Okay as they've got the bandwidth to be able to release the source code for all OSS code used internally but not sure about the smaller providers...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Your example is exactly where I was trying to go in my own post.
If I build a business around hosted virus scanning and the backend runs postfix,clam-av and mysql (which I've written all the gluecode myself), why the hell should I be forced to give up that glue code? I'm not selling the software, I'm selling a service, which is what they've been telling us should be the business model all along.
Someone may argue that, since I'm selling a service, I should have no problem with giving up the code but I say to those people "Why? I took and glued together three disparate products to build my solution. I'm not selling the software package to anyone, I'm keeping it internal. My development of the glue is my edge."
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
To understand the GPL (version 3, but really this applies to previous versions as well) you have to stop thinking as a programmer, and start thinking as a user. (It has always surprised me that hackers (of all the people in the world?!) have been the advocates of GPL. Hackers and programmers have the least incentive, of all the population, to need this. GPL is for users.) Preferably, as a helpless user whose ass has been bitten by proprietary software. (Remember RMS and his damned printer driver in 1983.)
Imagine you are a user of proprietary software. One day, you need maintenance. Maybe you need a new feature, or maybe you need a bugfix, or maybe an update removed a feature that you still need. And imagine you're dependent on this software. You have lots of existing documents stored in a proprietary format that only this software can use. You have been trained to use this software and not trained to use its competitor. You need it.
But the company who made this software went out of business 4 years ago. Or they simply don't give a damn about you and will not customize their shrink-wrapped product for your obscure pathetic little whiney need, because you're as insignificant as a cockroach to them. Or they want to charge you $500 per hour for their work. Or the feature that you want happens to be against the law in their jurisdiction. Or they're just incompetent.
You're fucked. Nobody can (or will) help you. Do you really give a damn whether the software happens to run on your local machine (it was "distributed" to you) or on a remote machine? And get this: if it runs remotely, then even if it's Free Software instead of proprietary, then you're still fucked, unless the programmer happens to be a nice guy.
GPL is about freedom of maintenance. It should be a guarantee that you can always get maintenance. As a last resort, you can always do the work yourself or hire whoever you want who is qualified, to handle whatever you need done. GPL is a major development in safety from ever being orphaned or exploited. It forces software maintenance into a free market.
As a programmer, if you build derived works of GPLed code, and have users who merely use your software (without distributing it to them) you are creating a situation where those users are dependent on you. They are unable to modify the software or hire someone else to do that. If you die, lose interest in the project, get in a dispute with them, etc, then they're screwed. That's totally contrary to the intent of GPL, and that's why it's a loophole.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
How does website owners being idiots affect the GPL? Will there be an explicit clause in the GPL saying "thou shalt not exclude Firefox/Konqueror/Opera/whatever from thy website?"
They really, *really* haven't thought about this. The existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes. Now they're saying "well, your software is staying in-house, but you have limitations on what you can do with it, depending on what data you handle or that data's source". Well screw that. That's precisely what everyone hates about DRM - it's restricting how software is allowed to use data that you already own.
Personally, I can see GPL3 getting zero use if that gets in. Or if anyone adopts it, there'll be an instant fork of that application, simply due to the licensing (Google for one are majorly unlikely to be releasing their search algorithms to the world), and all the active users will adopt the GPL2 fork, leaving a few people on a wasting-away GPL3 fork. That really doesn't help anyone.
Basically, this proposal is exactly what we all hate about closed-source software licensing - their ability to bait-and-switch. Get people using the software, with data that's tied to the software, and then change the licensing terms on your next upgrade. "Oh, you don't want this restriction? and you don't want to pay $x to keep your software? Then goodbye, and good luck getting your data back." In this case, the GPL team are doing the same with a software install base. "Don't like this new license? then forget about using Apache, GTK, etc. Oh, that screws your business which was previously using them legally? Too bad."
On the same topic of not thinking things through, consider the proposal to ban selected companies from using GPL software. This is even crazier. Again we're back to the ability of software licensors to arbitrarily revoke your license to use software and leave you high and dry.
Luckily we have the ability to keep going with the GTK2 license, which I predict will be the result - the GPL3 license will die, unused and unloved. The only result will be a permanent loss of credibility for RMS and the GPL in general, which would be a shame.
Grab.
If UltraSearch.com has a bug whereby a crafty HTTP request can allow me to download the source script instead of the output thereof, does that mean that I'm not allowed to fix the bug in derivative works?
Scenario 1: My company has a website, built in-house with GPLv3 tools and components. It is serving data to customers with web browsers. Is it required to make the code for its website software public?
Scenario 2: My company has an internal software application built in-house with GPLv3 tools and components. This software generates research data. A summary of this data is made available to its customers as, say, PDF files. How is this different from scenario 1?
Scenario 3: My company makes a business out of supplying critical stock trading services to its customers. The backend messaging servers are built on Linux, or use other GPLv3 tools. The application opens interfaces, be they proprietary, to paying customers, so that they can interact with this messaging server.
How is this different from scenario 1?
cat
The FSF (well, RMS) has stated in the past that Free is more important than Good. This is where they disagree with the Open Source people, who believe that Free eventually produces Good. My personal view is that Free has a certain value, and Good has a certain value - which is more valuable depends on the individual application, and the respective quantities of each.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This comment regards your sig, and what you're addressing in your comment. Because they contradict each other:
Why do the folks who insist on keeping "God" in "one nation under God" want to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
You speak here of fundamental rights and freedoms in the US. Yet, it your post you say, "Freedom isn't a big deal. Who cares about it? No one. What people want is good software."
That's true. Did you know that the USSR had a 0% unemployment rate? Everyone had a job. Did you see the unemployed from capitalist, and socialist countries moving to the communist USSR? No.
Because Good just isn't good enough. At some point you have to lay down that you feel that people have a Right to your code, because you said so, and that no amount of "better" that can be tacked onto that program trumps that Right to keep seeing the source code.
Yes, it's advancing an ideology, and not advancing good software, but that's not the point. The F/OSS community doesn't have the mission statement "A computer on every desk running F/OSS." So our goal is *not* to force our software on everyone. F/OSS is driven by the goal of Free (as in Speech) Software For All Mankind.
If you don't like it, go back to using Windows, because that's Good Software. Meanwhile others who agree with the ideology will keep using Linux, because it's Free Software. Not because Linux is better than Windows, but because you feel that access to the source code should be a Right, not a Priviledge.
(Statements are my own, and do not reflect those of the company I work for.)
I am unamerican, and proud of it!