GPL and Leased Software? 169
LordByronStyrofoam asks: "In the body of the article linked in the recent Silicon Valley Has Learned to Love the Bust, Salesforce.com and IBM were said to be planning to lease or rent software. IBM did this for many years back when they controlled the big iron market. It reveals a bottom layer in the cultural strata of software users: those who use Free Software; those who click through EULA's and the associated closed-source licenses; and the lowly renters. Do renters of GPL software have no rights under the GPL? Is this situation similar to the one where the makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to provide the source, even though the devices are based on embedded Linux?"
"Silicon Valley Has Learned to Love the Bust" (Score:5, Funny)
Ob. Boring Engineer comment (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ob. Boring Engineer comment (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's GPLed, you can just get the source somewhere else, right? What's the issue here then?
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL requires the person who distributes the binary to distribute the source (especially if that is a commercial distribution). It is not legal to pass that obligation off to some public web site not affiliated with the people who distribute the binary.
Bruce
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
The distributor could create CD-Rs of the source to the device (or app) and then send a copy of the source CD-R only to any people who actually ask for it - it isn't necessary to send the source at the same time as the binary.
IOW, they are under no obligation to include the source code to the device to everyone who rents it, only to those who take the time to ask them for the sourc
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
If I load GPL binaries on my hardware and rent that hardware, AFAIK (but IANAL) I only have to distribute the source if the renter can get at the binaries. If they can't see the binaries, then I'm not obligated to provide the source. So, if I put the source into the hardware, right next to the binaries, I should be covered, right? I mean, if they have to hack into the hardware to
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
> doesn't mean you can get the modified source that
> created the binary you leased from me.
The owner of the source that you modified can require you to comply with the GPL and give me the source. His license to you (the GPL) permits you to distribute his work only under the terms of the GPL. By distributing it under your lease you are violating that license.
GPL v3? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm gonna call the manufacturers of all my embedded stuff now. Wasting company time is a great hobby, I recommend it for everyone.
Re:GPL v3? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GPL v3? (Score:2)
Does freedom only matter if it's American?
Re:GPL v3? (Score:4, Informative)
We're working on it.
Inflammatory (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, that's just not true. Is there a "caste" system for software users? I would certainly hope not, to create one would be a pointless and self-indulgent intellectual exercise.
But even if there were to be such a thing, would free software users belong at the bottom? Some would say yes, because they're cheap. But if you think about it, actually free software users require a lot more from their software.
We don't like bugs. We don't like bloat. We don't like giving up control of our files in exchange for shiney, flashy interfaces. As a result, very few softwares (like Apache for instance) meet our standards.
Damn this kind of stratification, but if it does exist, put free software users at the top of the pyramid, where we belong. You can put the braindead 12 yearolds downloading from Kazaa at the bottom.
Re:Inflammatory (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn this kind of stratification, but if it does exist, put free software users at the top of the pyramid, where we belong.
Read closer: "It reveals a bottom layer in the cultural strata of software users: those who use Free Software; those who click through EULA's and the associated closed-source licenses; and the lowly renters." (Emphasis mine.)
I.E., the renters are the bottom layer, and the Free software users are at the top where you want them.
Re:Inflammatory (Score:2)
I personally think that particular sentence was poorly phrased, and it took a little thought for me to extract the information from it.
But you're right -- strata is plural, and being after the colon, the list of three items describes the cultural strata. The fact that the lowly renters are the bottom stratum of the three listed (though implied from the word
Re:Inflammatory (Score:2, Insightful)
Renting is distribution (Score:2)
There is no story here.
Distribution is distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Distribution is distribution (Score:2)
Owning the copyright on a piece of information is not the same as owning a piece of information.
Certainly, if I buy media containing information, that doesn't give me owership of the copyright on that information.
I think it does give me ownership of the information.
Conversely, ownership of copyright does not necessarily imply ownership of the information. I have heard that many record companies maintain ownership of master recordings. The artist
Re:Distribution is distribution (Score:2)
I think it does give me ownership of the information.
No it doesn't. It gives you ownership of that copy of the information.
1) you can do most stuff with your copy of the information that doesn't involve making more copies
2) under very limited circumstances you can make more copies
__________
I think your thing with the artists would be:
-- artist owns rights to the master
-- studio ha
Re:Distribution is distribution (Score:3, Insightful)
If I have possession of some piece of information, I can do anything I want except the things that copyright law reserves for the copyright holder. The law does not enumerate what rights I have -- it simply restricts the rights I would normally have over my property.
If I ow
Re:Distribution is distribution (Score:2)
I don't think you mean that. I own a copy of WindowsXP I can sell that copy for money. I can duplicate that copy for my own needs. I can't sell those copies for money. Conversely Microsoft can produce and can sell them for money. So in some sense they seem to have more ownership of the information than I do.
That's what my post was refering to. You own the rights to a copy not to the information. That the copy
Re:Distribution is distribution (Score:2)
In some sense that seems true, but it doesn't really fit with what I consider ownership. If you buy a copy of WindowsXP, MS cannot demand that you return their property because it does not belong to th
Re:Distribution is distribution (Score:2)
Naurish: Copyright limits your right to use copyrighted information that you own (and in doing so promotes the creation of more information). It also defines exceptions to those limitations. Outside of t
Distribution includes leasing (Score:5, Informative)
So, that would be distribution, and would need to happen under GPL terms.
The GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
This issue, I'm sure, will get clouded beyond reason, by those who are going by what they think the GPL is about rather than what it says.
When you make a work based on GPL code, the following can be said, logically:
The first law in question is: Copryight
Under copyright law, do I have permission to "lease" copies of software that I do not hold the copyright to, to others? No, I don't. Why? Because that requries making COPIES, which I am not allowed to do under copyright law (other than fair-use.. which this certainly isn't)
So.. that iother avenue is open? Well, the software is covered by the GPL.. so that lets you do some things normally reserved for the copyrgiht older....
It clearly states that you cannot distribute copies to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL. As another poster said, the GPL does not cover "ownership", it covers copying & distribution. This is not about who owns software... you can't say "well it's still ours, we are just letting you borrow it".
So in short:
Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder.
The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.
It's very clear cut.
Re:The GPL (Score:2)
You'll notice the Copyright XXXX Authors Name
This piece of software is owned by the author who wrote it. However the license allows for the distribution you outline above. But because you don't own it, you can't say for example, change the license. However the Author can, but the Author can't change the license on the distributed copies, nor can they chan
Re:The GPL (Score:2)
What makes you say it's a EULA? The text of the gpl [gnu.org] indicates otherwise to me:
Okay two points. (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, the GPL is absolutely NOT an EULA. IT even states right there in the GPL it is NOT A USE LICENSE. It does not cover the usage of the software at all, and you do not have to accept it to use the software.
The GPL is a license that grants you permissions above and beyond what you are allowed to do under copyright law.
I'm not sure what point you are disputing.. what you say about how the GPL works with reference to the original copyrigh
Re:The GPL (Score:2)
You are mistaken.
It is important to understand the distinction between *using* software and *copying* software (where "copy" is shorthand for copy, modify or distribute). Using OpenOffice to write a letter is an example of use. Selling boxed copies of OpenOffice is not an example of use.
The EULA has nothing to do with copyright. Normal copyright still applies so you
dangers of mixed code distribution. (Score:2)
Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder.
The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.
That tells me nothing about current IBM practices.
Suppose that I'm leasing an IBM kernel that's under the GPL and I decide that I don't need IBM at the end of my lease term. In theory, I own the software because I have the source and compile it on my onw, n
Re:dangers of mixed code distribution. (Score:2)
NOpe. (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea they cannot charge you for software? The GPL says nothing at all about whether or not you can charge for software.
I can take the linux kernel, modify it, and sell copies for $50,000 a pop.
The GPL lets me do this as long as I provide them with source (or equ
Renters do not receive distribution (Score:2, Interesting)
Renters do not receive distribution.
Case in point: I run Linux, to serve web pages that are dynamically constructed by Tomcat and Apache. Where is the distribution of GPLed software happening in this scenario? I simply rent managed database storage, and provide the web interface.
Surely the GPL was never intended to cover undistributed modifications, or else the
Re:Renters do not receive distribution (Score:2)
Bruce
You're confusing two different things (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
What about websites? (Score:2)
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
Re:What about websites? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
Bad Idea (Score:2)
If client/server software catches on and reliable broadband becomes universal, all companies need to do is provide a thin client running something like X or VNC or something higher level and never distribute any binaries.
Re:What about websites? (Score:4, Informative)
"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."
When you visit Sourceforge, what you see is a web page, which is the output of their content software. The web page is not a derivative work of that software, therefore not covered.
Which is just common sense: The copyright covers the Program, and the output of the Program isn't the Program, unless of course it is.
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
Unless you mean the source to whatever CGI scripts, etc. may have conspired to generate the HTML/J-script/etc. your browser is decoding. Since you have been sent the OUTPUT from those things, it would fall under the same category as a compiler, where producing a binary from GPL'd source does not give rights to the source for the compiler.
If it worked that way, then I'd have the source to Windows and perhaps even the Athlon it's running on.
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
Or for those who hate MS, if you used Visual Studio.Net does that automatically make your program property of Microsoft?
No. This would be a Really Bad Thing (tm) in my mind.
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
No it would require that the program be a derived work. That's a much tougher criteria than simply used to create.
Or for those who hate MS, if you used Visual Studio.Net does that automatically make your program property of Microsoft?
Microsoft's license is quite generous in terms of ownership even for derived works. This is a bad example.
Re:What about websites? (Score:2)
They are both examples of why it is stupid to automatically license the source of the program based on the license of the program.
You may need to take some pain killers for that knee. How about next time you read the comment, count to 10, read it again, and then think about posting.
The real top layer (Score:2)
Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:5, Informative)
This is false -- people who make embedded devices using GPL software must make available source code to that software.
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2)
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2, Informative)
So, yes, you can demand a copy of the source, but all you will get is a cut down GNU/Linux, without the CSS code added by the manufacturer.
Of couse there is also the possiblity that the manufacturer has combined their code with GPL code and in this case, they must give you all the source, including that which they would cons
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2)
No. That is one possible (very unlikely) remedy. A judge is more likely to think that removing the GPLed code and paying a fine would be appropriate, though.
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2, Interesting)
2) Put on Linux kernel + Busy Box + uClibc
3) Put on closed source, linked against uClibc application that contains in itself no GPL Code.
Question: Does source for that closed source application have to, in any way, be provided under the terms of the GPL ?
As far as I understood it, the ONLY things that would HAVE to be provided would be a CD with the Linux Kernel, Busy Box, and uClibC, should someone ask for it.
(plus any changes you made to the above source)
Is th
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2)
Question: Does source for that closed source application have to, in any way, be provided under the terms of the GPL ?
As long as uClibc is Lgpl, then you're fine. If uClibc is full GPL, then I believe that the resulting program would be considered a derivative work and subject to source code release. (IANAL)
Re:Embedded device makers must provide source (Score:2)
Derivied work (Score:2)
So for example Debian legal held that KDE because it required QT was a derived work of QT. Had the harmoney (I think that's what it was called) project, to create a LGPL version of QT been succesful that status of KDE would have been different and then it would not hav
OS vs library (Score:2)
Anyway onto the main point. I misunderstood you when I responded to you the last time, now I understand your point. I should mention it appears that Linus agrees with you as well as he starts his license with the following disclaimer
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover
FSF take on it (Score:4, Informative)
The Free Software Foundation has confirmed that there is nothing in the GPL license restricting anybody from charging access fees to a server running GPL software. Is this a business opportunity or what?
Hey, is Slashdot getting Googled? (Score:2, Funny)
"That Instant Karma gonna get you!"
Re:Hey, is Slashdot getting Googled? (Score:2)
Caste systems (Score:3, Insightful)
This analogy doesn't work with software at the current time, when you consider the "poorest" of the operating system citizens weilds incredible influence. I liken the current political atmosphere of software to a popular revolution, not to a long standing judicial tradition.
What about ASPs? (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, if leasing is physical distribution of the software under some sort of license, then I suppose the GPL would apply.
Re:What about ASPs? (Score:2)
Recent court decisions have indicated that loading a program into memory creates a copy that is covered by copyright
Err, not even... (Score:2)
So.. if you are not running the software, and it's not being distribute to you, but instaed, you are only permitted to interact with it, you have no claim to anything.
The ASP problem (Score:5, Interesting)
History Repeats Itself ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Erroneous Assumptions (Score:3, Interesting)
> the GPL?
I've never seen a software rental agreenent that would not be in direct violation of the GPL.
> Is this situation similar to the one where the
> makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to
> provide the source, even though the devices are
> based on embedded Linux?"
Can you provide some support for the claim that such a situation exists?
this story is on news.google.com (Score:2)
cool
Ahh, the old "ASP Loophole" -- Some good articles (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an interesting article [newsforge.com] from 2000 written by someone who actually had a dialogue with RMS about the subject.
It actually links to an even older Slashdot article [slashdot.org] about the same subject.
The basic story was a developer wanted to release his product as open source but didn't want to see someone grab it, set up a competing site and not have to share code.
That story links to a SourceForge.net forum thread which is now offline, or at least "restricted to members of this group" (?). I believe they had similar issues back when they published their code.
In the end, looks like nothing was ever resolved...
CENTRAL REPOSITORY (Score:2)
This way, if someone needs to modify the software and/or if the company that made it goes out of business, a copy is available in a central place such that anybody can obtain it and continue to use it. Also, the company wouldn't have to worry about making released code available because it already is.
The FSF would be
Danger! Danger! (Score:2, Insightful)
they're not renting software (Score:2)
Licenses for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
They rent you parts of a book. You agree to not allow anyone else to look at the book. If you stop paying you get to keep the book parts but can never open them again. Microsoft can change what the book says whenever they want. You cannot sell your book parts even when you're finished with them. You cannot change the words in the book even to fix spelling/punctuation errors. Microsoft can change the terms of the agreement whenever they like... you cannot. The BSA goons can walk in with their government law enforcement lapdogs and make you drop your pants for an audit whenever they like. Don't loose those receipts!
Regular Proprietary software
"They" sell you a copy of a book. You can read the book for as long as you want. You may not let anyone else read the book unless you agree to stop reading the book. Sometimes you may edit the book but you cannot ever allow anyone to read the edited version. The BSA goons can walk in with their government law enforcement lapdogs and make you drop your pants for an audit whenever they like. Don't loose those receipts!
GPL
You own a copy of the book. You can make as many copies as you want. You can sell or give away as many copies as you want. You can completely rewrite the book, however If you edit the book and give it away or sell it you must include your edits and you must pass these same rules along to anyone who gets your copy of the book. You must also give credit to the original author(s) of the book. The original author(s) of the book can change the agreement at any time but you can refuse to accept any changes in the agreement with your edition of the book. The BSA can go to hell and you can burn any receipts you may or may not have aquired.
BSD
You own the book. You an do whatever you like with the book except remove the credit of the original author(s) but so can everyone else. The BSA can go to hell.
Public Domain
You own the book and the idea behind the book but so does everyone else. You can claim it as your own and can do whatever you like but so can everyone else. The BSA can go to hell.
The GPL is the only license (mentioned here) that requires you to give something back if you distribute the software. In my opinion that's why it's the most morally correct. The GPL is why I'm a Linux fan even though I feel the BSD's are still superior in most ways. Microsoft's perversion of Kerebos would not have been legal under the GPL.
G
Re:Licenses for idiots (Score:2)
It's still dangerous to claim PD material as your own. Yes, you own a nonexclusive copyright to it, and don't need to credit the author in any way. But to claim you are the author is dishonest, and can get you expelled/fired for plagiarism. Or exposed to civil liability, and maybe even arrested for fraud (a big stretch).
Borderline? (Score:2, Interesting)
2) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at my own premises and allow customers to use the services provided by the code: No need to share the source.
3) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at a server farm: Do I need to share the source? Think not?
4) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at a server farm and allow customers to use the services provided by the code: Do I need to share the source? Think not?
5) I modify GPL
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the question IS an easy one, but you're on the wrong path.
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you're wrong. If I have 100 PCs and I want to put my own custom hacked linux kernel on all of them, I'm perfectly allowed to do so, without releasing the source. I'm just not allowed to offer binaries to the general public (unless I also make the source available too).
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2)
As long as those 100 boxes are "one of [your] own machines" and you're not selling/renting them to anybody else.(I.e. you're using them internally to your company). then that's accurate -- and consistent with the previous poster. You only have to give the source code to organizations that get copies of the object code.
-- but once you're into distributing th
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2)
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Let's say there is a GPL-d web server called Appa_chi. Does my connecting to a website driven by Appa_chi, grant me the right to the source for Appa_chi? I don't think so. I don't have the binarie
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, blah blah...
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2)
The video store can't make 20 copies of a DVD and then rent THOSE, not without a license from the copyright holder.
Just the same, you cannot make 20 copies of my software and rent it out without my permission.
The GPL says the only way you an make copies and distribute them is if you do so under the terms of the GPL. That means you can't throw additional restrictions on it, like having to return it.
Re:You don't own it if you don't buy it. (Score:2)
The nature of the GPL is that it (legally speaking) kicks in whenever you do something that would otherwise be a violation of copyright law. In this case, it would be when you make copies and distribute them... Thus, when I make DVDs for distribution and distribute those copies (whether by renting or sale), then I'm responsible to making sure that you have copies of the source code that have no further limits on distribution. If I send you a copy of the source with each copy of
Re:The real bottom layer ... (Score:2)
Re:The real bottom layer ... (Score:2)
Re:The user is /not/ free under GPL (Score:2)
Re:The user is /not/ free under GPL (Score:2)
The GPL encourages *all* users to become distributors. That's the point: sharing helps us all.
That's one way of putting it... (Score:2)
According to the GPL, software is, as thought, not something which can be "owned". As such, withholding it from the public is tantamount to stealing, and therefore it prohibits you from doing so. The BSD license basically lets you do whatever you want, including stealing the code from the public domain.
I would prefer to GPL my own software, simply because if I want to give my code to t
Re:The user is /not/ free under GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL places absolutely no restrictions on a user: a user is someone who runs the program and gets a result.
The GPL only restricts someone who wishes to modify or distribute the program, which is not something that a user normally does.
Re:The user is /not/ free under GPL (Score:2)
Good post, except for this. Apple has released quite a bit of source code in the form of Darwin, which is BSD-derived. I think Apple has shown at least a little bit of integrity in the past.
Hopefully, we can expect the same in the future.
Re:Renting Hardware With GPL Software (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Renting Hardware With GPL Software (Score:3, Interesting)
How is providing a customer with a leased or loaned machine any different then charging an access fee for the server residing at your premises? I agree that it is not necessarily something that I wish to promote as a hole in the GPL, but I would think one would need to be a lawyer with case law to
Re:Renting Hardware With GPL Software (Score:2)
The word "distribute" means to spread something out of physical space. If a business mails boxes to 10 different customers, the English language definition of distribution is clearly met. If a another business installs 2 copies on their co-located servers, that's also "distribution"- but the recipients are their own employees.
According to the GPL, it is those recipients who must get written offers