Re: [tlug] Yes! Another argument about the GPL! You knew you wanted it....

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

Edward Middleton writes:

 > For GPL2 (don't know about 3) you are only required to give others the
 > code, not the author of the work you are deriving.

GPLv3 doesn't change that.  However, "Affero GPLv3" extends the
requirement that you give "full source" from "anyone who receives any
form of your derived code" to "anyone who receives or causes
invocation of any form of your derived code" (ie, to close the "ASP
loophole" where you get the user's data, run the code on your own
host, and return the answer to her, and thus don't need to give her
any code).  Such user interaction is often called "deployment" (versus
"distribution") of code in such licenses.

RMS came down hard on Apple, I think it was, for a deployment clause
(at the time he claimed it was a privacy invasion, but now apparently
he's revised his opinion to object to Apple's clause because it gave
rightsholders special privileges ... you had to send the code to the
upstream rightsholders as well as to users ... rather than on the
grounds of privacy invasion).