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."
You actually read the original interview and what RMS actually said?
What are you doing posting on Slashdot.
Can I please explain what you are supposed to do?
1) Read the inaccurate summary of an inaccurate article.
2) DO NOT READ THE ARTICLE OR ORIGINAL SOURCES
3) Make sure you know nothing about the subject under discussion.
4) Post the first thing that comes into your head.
Please note that steps two and three are vital. The moderators will not have read anything other than the summary, so if what you say is inconsistent with the summary you will be assumed to be wrong. If you know about the subject and have expert knowledge, please remember other Slashdot users to not, and they do not want to make their heads hurt by following explanations either.
RTFA
get a clue
stop posting disinformed bullshit
I am the bastard of base minus 12! Turing was the ejaculate of my complete machine!
The existing GPL said that if the derivative code stayed in-house, then you didn't have to release your changes.
No, the GPL never said that. 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.
Distribution (aka publishing)
No, not "aka publishing". "Distribution" and "publishing" are entirely different words. If the GPL really meant to say "publishing", they should fix that in the new version.
I'd still really like to see the definition of "distribute" you are using, because it's hard for me to imagine one that would both create an "in-house" exception to the GPL, but not also open a loophole permitting almost anyone to break the GPL by adding a little boilerplate ahead of every sale.
We are talking about copyright law here, so technically, ie, legally, this does not count as distribution...
You can't just keep asserting that. You've got to back it up, somehow. If you think that a non-English definition of "distribute" applies, then paste it. (I have found special meanings of "distribute" in some law dictionaries, but only for specific circumstances unlike this one)
You have noticed you were talking about a tangible good (aprons) instead of copiable, intellectual content?
It makes no difference regarding what "distribution" means. If you only want to think about it in terms of IP though, let's say Wal-Mart buys a single Mariah Carey music CD and
The copyright law.
Yes, and copyright law is on my side. It recognizes that if a big company buys a single copy of a book and hands out photocopies for all their employees to use on the job, they have infringed copyright by distributing unauthorized reproductions.
If you think copyright law says something else, and that corporations have a special exception to distribute internally, then go ahead and post your source.
3a. [*] even when acting against corp regulations,
If the corporation has a regulation against the redistribution of internally-modified GPL software, then they are in violation of GPL part 6 ("no further restrictions"), and all their use of the program (beyond the first) is illegal copyright infringement.
Enterprises do not have "personal" usage of nothing,
Yes, exactly. The GPL is not a "site license". It includes no text that applies specifically to a corporation or organization. Corporate licenses to software only happen when the license explicitly gives a corporate buyer more rights than an individual would have. The GPL doesn't do this.
But the license for Windows XP specifically limits the number of PCs you can use it on!
Well, no. Copyright law restricts you to running it on one PC, unless some other license relaxes that limitation. A license can only give you more rights, not take them away. If the Windows XP license had been forgotten from a particular box, I'd still be able to use it on one and only one PC.
I'm not a native speaker, but I suppose in this case "distribute" in legalspeak is meant as "distribute to some one outside the license holder"
If so, then the GPL has a giant loophole. I can put GPL code in proprietary software and then rent it out to customers for 200 year periods, and claim "Since they've got to give the programs back in 200 years, it's still corporate property and I haven't distributed anything"
Look retard, the FSF has stated time and time again that 'distribution' under the wording of the GPL does not refer to internal distribution within an organization.
One little FAQ entry is not "time and time again". What the FSF keeps repeating is "You are not obligated to publish", which is separate from "You may prohibit redistribution".
But if they did say that, then they are allowing any commercial publisher free reign to paste GPL code into their proprietary products. All they've got to do is glue on a sticker saying "When you buy this disc, you get free membership into the Microsoft KDE club. Then the software will be given to you for internal use as part of our organization"
and does not permit the use of this software by their employees or anyone else except when acting as agents of BigCorp
And if they do not permit use for other purposes, then they must prohibit or "restrict" it, which is an explicit violation of GPL section 6. Corporations in general have broad authority to limit the actions of their employees- but the GPL doesn't allow them to exercise that limit in this case.
Corporations can also acquire authority to limit the actions of their customers (such as by signing contracts before it is sold, or even just click-thru EULAs)- but by the same token, to exercise such authority would be a GPL violation.
If it is valid for a corporation to say "Employees, I am not 'distributing' this software I'm handing out, because I have chosen not to allow you to excercise the GPL-mandated redistribution rights", then it is also valid to say "Customers, I am not 'distributing' this software to you, because I have chosen not to allow you GPL rights".