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."

5 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. That article is just disinformative by Cronopios · · Score: 5, Informative
    The information comes from this excellent interview to RMS conducted by Federico Biancuzzi, and published on OnLamp.

    This is what RMS actually said:
    Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?

    Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.

    But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.

    This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.

    How would it work?

    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.
    This inteview is also discussed on OSNews.
    --
    Windows users:
    Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
  2. Devil is in the details by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 5, Informative
    A simple "websites running GPL software being required to release their source code by some means" is quite scary and if it's that simple it could be quite burdensome as "running GPL software" is a very wide target.

    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:
    We're looking at an approach where programs used (on a public server) will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running," Stallman said. "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.
    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
  3. 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. 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!
  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