Re: [tlug] GPL and Open Source Licences

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "simon" == simon colston <simon@example.com> writes:

    simon> Pietro Zuco wrote:
    >> On Friday 31 December 2004 09:57, simon colston wrote:
    >>> If I link to some GPLed code I understand that I have to
    >>> licence my code under the GPL too.  If I then distribute my
    >>> program I understand that I also have to distribute the source
    >>> code as well.

That's right.  If you distribute a program that is derived from a
GPLed work, which might be by linking to a GPLed library or by copying
code from a GPLed program, you must distribute the source for
everything part of that program, including any libraries you
distribute as part of the program.

But whether to distribute or not is up to you.  This means that (for
example) you can sell your derived code to someone who you know will
keep it secret.  You are under no obligation to publish your program,
only to distribute source when you distribute the program in any form.

I believe that you can legally sign a contract not to redistribute the
code you wrote (Cygnus Solutions, for example, got burned in one case
when the company they were doing some contract work for went out of
business, so that under the NDA they signed they were unable to
release the GCC improvements they had created).

You can also _ask_ the customer to refrain from redistributing your
code.

There's also the "ASP loophole" where you make important value-added
modifications to GPL code but provide a service based on the code
rather than selling the program itself.  Ie, you use use them only
within a single corporation.  Then no "distribution" has taken place
(assuming employees have signed NDAs), and there is no requirement to
distribution source with the service.

Both these practices make rms very upset.

    simon> OK, so let's say I sell the program and the source to one
    simon> customer under the GPL.  I understand that under the GPL
    simon> the customer *can* copy, modify and make the source public
    simon> but is that customer _obliged_ to do so?  Can the source be
    simon> kept secret between me and my one and only customer for
    simon> this program? Or, can anyone write to my customer and force
    simon> them to give them a copy of the source because it is
    simon> licenced under the GPL?

No, yes (by gentlemen's agreement; you cannot make a contract
enforceable in court), and no.

    simon> I can see that the GPL is great for a program with many,
    simon> many users. You create a community around the program and
    simon> everyone contributes, more eyes looking for problems is a
    simon> good thing.  But when a program is written specifically for
    simon> use by one user/organization only, then there are very few
    simon> benefits in that program being licenced under the GPL.

The GPL has a lot of benefit even in that case, at least from the
customer's point of view: it prevents lock-in.  Second, there's no
such thing as a standalone program; all programs are reusable to some
degree.  See also the stuff at www.opensource.org and Eric Raymond's
writings, for a start.

    simon> In my opinion the source *should* be made available to the
    simon> user/organization who are using the program - if they
    simon> decide they don't like me they can get someone else to fix
    simon> their program in the future -

Really, that eventually leads to the GPL.  For example, suppose your
customer wants to ask TLUG for help---he can't, unless he has the
right to publish the code.

Note that other licenses have different provisions.  The BSD licenses
would permit you to keep your code private---but only if the
_upstream_ is BSD.  You can't change to BSD if the code is already
GPL.  The Apple Public Source License has a controversial clause which
requires that if you "deploy" code in your organization you must
publish modifications.  The OSI accepts this as "open source", the FSF
declared it "non-free".  The point is to close the "ASP loophole", but
the FSF is unwilling to accept it none-the-less.  The Creative Commons
licenses have yet other provisions.  See the lists at gnu.org and
opensource.org.



-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.