Hi there,
one idea came to my mind (not exactly from nowhere, but this doesn't matter for now)
say you write some piece of software and publish it under the GNU GPL license.
say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only as part of a support contract.
A DOESN'T WANT TO deliver full source code of the combined product to B under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Question : does company A violate the GPL or not by not distributing full source code under the terms of the GPL to B ?
(Of course I understand that A is not required to distribute full source code to the general public or even to you as principal author of the original software)
Thanks in advance for any clarification
Jerome Alet
It all depends if what A does counts as "distribution". I think it doesn't.
The GPL is designed to prevenmt the situation where a person can have the software but not the source, not to cause all enhancements to be made public. It reaches its aim by causing the source to public enhancments to also be made public.
"be made public" is my rendering of "distribute" in the license.
I've said before that I think meaning of "distribute" in terms of the license needs clarifying.
Sam
Jerome Alet wrote:
Hi there,
one idea came to my mind (not exactly from nowhere, but this doesn't matter for now)
say you write some piece of software and publish it under the GNU GPL license.
say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only as part of a support contract.
A DOESN'T WANT TO deliver full source code of the combined product to B under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Question : does company A violate the GPL or not by not distributing full source code under the terms of the GPL to B ?
(Of course I understand that A is not required to distribute full source code to the general public or even to you as principal author of the original software)
Thanks in advance for any clarification
Jerome Alet _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 22:22, Jerome Alet wrote:
say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only as part of a support contract.
This counts as distribution, in both copyright and droit d'auteur regimes.
Question : does company A violate the GPL or not by not distributing full source code under the terms of the GPL to B ?
Yes, A violates the GNU GPL. If you believe that a company is violating the GNU licenses please follow instructions reported at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
regards stef
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 22:22, Jerome Alet wrote:
say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only as part of a support contract.
This counts as distribution, in both copyright and droit d'auteur regimes.
I think you are mistaken. If I install software on my machine and then co-locate my machine I am hardly distributing the software. I haven't seen Microsoft trying to charge extra when people move the PC that contains MS windows, or when I take my laptop into someone elses offices or plug it into someone elses network.
Question : does company A violate the GPL or not by not distributing full source code under the terms of the GPL to B ?
Yes, A violates the GNU GPL. If you believe that a company is violating the GNU licenses please follow instructions reported at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
I'm going to say it again, that "distribution" needs clarification. Either I am wrong or Stefano is, but it needs clarifying by more than folk contradicting eachother.
Can I suggest that FSF lawyers produce some sample scenarios by way of explanation. I will donate time to produce a web-based wizard where folk can tick boxes to show what they want to do with the software and the wizard explains the subsequent obligations they will be under. We all know that don't distribute means practically no further obligations but there is no common understanding of "distribute".
Sam
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:41:07PM +0100, Samuel Liddicott wrote:
I'm going to say it again, that "distribution" needs clarification. Either I am wrong or Stefano is, but it needs clarifying by more than folk contradicting eachother.
Can I suggest that FSF lawyers produce some sample scenarios by way of explanation. I will donate time to produce a web-based wizard where folk can tick boxes to show what they want to do with the software and the wizard explains the subsequent obligations they will be under. We all know that don't distribute means practically no further obligations but there is no common understanding of "distribute".
This would be really cool to have such a tool !
BTW I asked the question because I expected some clarification :-)
Thanks to all who answered so far, even if this is a bit confusing, at least this shows this is a difficult problem
Jerome Alet
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 15:41, Samuel Liddicott wrote:
I think you are mistaken. If I install software on my machine and then co-locate my machine I am hardly distributing the software.
If you rent your machine with software installed to a third party then you are distributing not only the hw but also the software. Therefore the GNU GPL applies and must be obeyed. This is the opionion of the FSFs lawyers, US and Europe.
I haven't seen Microsoft trying to charge extra when people move the PC that contains MS windows, or when I take my laptop into someone elses offices or plug it into someone elses network.
I don't know what Microsoft does. Plus your example are not pertinent: the question raised talked about renting, not borrowing a computer from a friend.
I'm going to say it again, that "distribution" needs clarification.
apparently the lawyers have the concept quite clear already.
Can I suggest that FSF lawyers produce some sample scenarios by way of explanation.
It would be a good thing, probably, but it would cost some precious (and costly) time of our lawyers that we have to spend on something else now (like this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/27/microsoft_ec_appeal/ ). Or you can learn yourself from law books what distribution means and program the wizard accordingly. Honestly, though, right now the FSFE can't afford put this effort on a high priority.
thanks stef
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 15:41, Samuel Liddicott wrote:
I think you are mistaken. If I install software on my machine and then co-locate my machine I am hardly distributing the software.
If you rent your machine with software installed to a third party then you are distributing not only the hw but also the software. Therefore the GNU GPL applies and must be obeyed. This is the opionion of the FSFs lawyers, US and Europe.
I suppose the original question was not clear:
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 22:22, Jerome Alet wrote:
say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only as part of a support contract.
I read this as B is co-locating the server on behalf of A, B taking the role of ISP. I agree, if B is the customer and actually using the service provided by A that this counts as a distribution.
If A does co-locate the service at B's facilites with a support contract from B but B is NOT using the services from A, but A has some independant customers C, who use the service on the computer hosted at B; does this count as distribution?
Sam
It would be a good thing, probably, but it would cost some precious (and costly) time of our lawyers that we have to spend on something else now (like this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/27/microsoft_ec_appeal/ ). Or you can learn yourself from law books what distribution means and program the wizard accordingly. Honestly, though, right now the FSFE can't afford put this effort on a high priority.
No doubt you have better things to do than explain the license, but you are the only ones authorititively able to explain the license. I never see the license discussed but without also seeing arguments over the meaning.
I could learn from law books but I will actually be spending by time developing GPL'd software.
Sam
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:52:20PM +0100, Samuel Liddicott wrote:
I suppose the original question was not clear:
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 22:22, Jerome Alet wrote:
say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only as part of a support contract.
I read this as B is co-locating the server on behalf of A, B taking the role of ISP.
you read this incorrectly then, but english is not my native language, sorry
I agree, if B is the customer and actually using the service provided by A that this counts as a distribution.
That's what I wanted to be sure of.
In my case B really is the final customer. B doesn't rent the server appliance per se, B has bought a support contract from A for the "enhanced" GPLed software. As part of the contract, A puts the server's at B's location, and B uses the software on A's server.
If A does co-locate the service at B's facilites with a support contract from B but B is NOT using the services from A, but A has some independant customers C, who use the service on the computer hosted at B; does this count as distribution?
This is not what I asked, but this is interesting too :-)
bye, and thanks again to all
Jerome Alet
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 17:16, Jerome Alet wrote:
In my case B really is the final customer. B doesn't rent the server appliance per se, B has bought a support contract from A for the "enhanced" GPLed software. As part of the contract, A puts the server's at B's location, and B uses the software on A's server.
This still looks like a distribution to me, although it is not a clear cut. To be sure and to enforce the GNU GPL you should contact also the GPL Compliance Lab of the FSF, as written on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
regards stef
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:08:42PM +0200, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 17:16, Jerome Alet wrote:
In my case B really is the final customer. B doesn't rent the server appliance per se, B has bought a support contract from A for the "enhanced" GPLed software. As part of the contract, A puts the server's at B's location, and B uses the software on A's server.
This still looks like a distribution to me, although it is not a clear cut. To be sure and to enforce the GNU GPL you should contact also the GPL Compliance Lab of the FSF, as written on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
I'll do this if said company A leaves me in doubt, which I don't know for yet.
Original question was to know in advance "just in case", but it is possible company A will choose the correct thing to do.
bye, and thx again to all
Jerome Alet
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 22:22, Jerome Alet wrote:
say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only as part of a support contract.
This counts as distribution, in both copyright and droit d'auteur regimes.
Question : does company A violate the GPL or not by not distributing full source code under the terms of the GPL to B ?
Yes, A violates the GNU GPL. If you believe that a company is violating the GNU licenses please follow instructions reported at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
regards stef