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!
If they want to stick with their own GPL2 fork, they can still keep it locked up.
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.
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.
The zdnet article is just a rehash of the onlamp interview with Stallman that has recently been on /.:3 .html0 9/24/1325214&tid=117&tid=156
/. blurb to this story or the zdnet article want to make you believe.
/.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
Needless to say that you should read the actual interview, as things are a bit more complex than what the
Well done
This is what RMS actually said:
This inteview is also discussed on OSNews.
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
I think that's only partially true. As I understand it, the derivative software will only have to allow the source code to be accessed if the original did as well. In other words, if google creates UltraSearch.com and licenses it as GPL3 AND includes a mechansism to download the source, then anyone who creates a derivative work would have to retain that mechanism or a comparable one. But if google had kept their sources private, then anyone who created a derivative work would presumably be allowed to keep their source private too. Of course, this is all confined to web-apps. Any software that is actually distributed will still have all the normal GPL conditions applying to it.
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: 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.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Also, I think that the open source community has to handle this very carefully, and clearly, otherwise there will be a lot of confusion around who has to post code and when. That said, we're just seeing drafts now for a license that won't officially exist until January 2007, so making any kind of substantive commentary on it is difficult.
One last thing, the web server (apache) that most people use isn't released under the GPL, so this has nothing to do with that.
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
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_
Expect lots of deliberate misunderstandings of this concept for FUD porpoises.
You couldn't be more wrong:
There are two grants in this clause:
1. [marked with first] the unconditional grant to make derivative works;
2. [marked with second] the conditional grant to distribute derivative works.
This means you may modify a GPL'd program and keep your changes to you. If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
Got it? IANAL & TINLA, but I am a paralegal.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. any later version.
Read your post again for me.
Now, that means you can chose to use the GPL 2.0 terms on the software that was distributed by that license (like lets say The GIMP 2.0) or, if you like you could chose any later version of it.
Do you understand now?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.