Disclaimer
This Blog does not create an attorney/client relationship
with you and does not provide specific legal advice to you or your company. Certain legal concepts have not been fully
developed and certain legal issues have been stated as fact for which arguments
can be made to the contrary, due to space constraints. It is provided for educational purposes
only. In addition, all participants,
including Paul Arne, other members of Morris, Manning & Martin, and all
those providing comments, may take positions that they do not fully endorse or
that their companies or law firms do not fully endorse, for the purpose of
exploring the legal and business issues discussed. No positions taken by any participant should
be viewed or asserted as his or her true belief or legal position.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
5 Comments:
I don't think you've violated the "spirit" of the GPL at all. At that point in time you are not modifying and redistributing the work, you are simply using it to help you provide a service. I'm thinking of countless websites that use the LAMP framework for providing services, is that off from what you originally meant? I think, and I could be wrong, that the largest issue with the GPL is distribution, if you distribute software that is a derivative of GPL'd software, or distribute a system that includes GPL'd software, you should make the sources for that software available to the public in some form.
I don't know whether they violate the spirit of the free software movement or not, but whether they "plug that hole" or not, anyone can still use the GPL'ed software they're currently using under the version of the GPL they obtained it under.
Just because a new version of the GPL came out doesn't mean it instantly replaces the old version.
However, this might come up if they want to upgrade that software and the new version is not available under the old GPL.
Frits
The "Free Software movement" is very diverse and the participants have wildly different interests. I could even argue for including Microsoft in the FOSS movement, because they distribute GNU tools with their Services for Unix.
The "online services" are topic of discussion. The FSF argues in favour of distributing the modifications; most members in the community don't care. There are some cases of blatant infringement that should be handled too.
You should also consider business issues. "Opening" your modifications gives you help from the community in maintaining them. Your customers will sleep better if they can be sure of access to their data after your bankruptcy. These are things that are helped by open sourcing your code.
'If you use and modify software subject to the GPL, but only use it "internally" as a way to provide online services to "external" third parties, have you violated the spirit of the free software movement?'
You have not mentioned a key fact. Do you, or do you not, make the source for the modified code available to the external third parties?
If you make it available, I am not sure the question even arises. I therefore assume you mean no. In this case, I think it may depend on the nature of what you are doing. Normally I have seen this discussion come up where people are basically "renting" "use" of the software in an ASP like deal. Not for instance some newspaper modifying LAMP code and making a subscription online version of their paper available to people.
In the case of said newspaper, off the top, with little thought, I think they are cool with respect to the spirit of Free Software, whereas I think the ASP dudes would not be.
A Nony Mouse
I asked Stallman about this in Feb 2001, and his answers are linked from this page:
http://steve-parker.org/articles/lego/
Specifically, his answers are: http://steve-parker.org/articles/lego/rms1.shtml and http://steve-parker.org/articles/lego/rms2.shtml
Post a Comment
<< Home