[olug] U.K. Urged to hold back on open source

[Sam Tetherow]

William E. Kempf wrote:

>Christopher Cashell said:
>  
>
>>At Fri, 20 Jun 03, Unidentified Flying Banana William E. Kempf, said:
>>    
>>
>>>If you derive from GPL source (which is a complex thing to determine
>>>in some cases), the new work is automatically GPLed, and under the
>>>terms of the license, the source code must be provided or be available
>>>upon request, with no charge beyond "your cost of physically
>>>performing source distribution".
>>>      
>>>
>>The first part of your statement is correct, however the second part
>>doesn't necessarily apply.
>>
>>If you create software based on GPL source code (thus, creating a
>>derivative work), then it must be covered under the GPL license.
>>However, that does *NOT* mean that you must immediately give away the
>>source code you've written.  You only have to do that if you distribute
>>the program.
>>    
>>
>
>Which is precisely what I said in the e-mail prior to the one I'm
>correcting here.
>
>  
>
>>For example, say I (and my company) take the foo billing program, which
>>is GPLed, and use it as a base for our new *internal* billing program.
>>We greatly enhance it and add a lot to it.  We start calling it the bar
>>billing program, because it's changed so much from foo, but because foo
>>was GPLed, bar is GPLed.  Am I required to give away bar to anyone who
>>asks for it?  No.
>>    
>>
>
>Absolutely correct, but this is part of what makes the corporate lawyers
>wary of the GPL.  Imagine that some library component was created, based
>off of the GPL work, for this billing application.  Since the billing
>application is not distributed, the lawyers need not be concerned about
>the use of GPLed code here.  Unfortunately, later on we create some
>financial calculator which uses this derivative work and distribute it to
>others.  It's too easy to miss the fact that this causes the calculator to
>be GPLed and thus we have to distribute the source for it.
>
>  
>
>>I *only* have to give, or offer to give, bar's source code to someone if
>>I give (or sell) bar to them.  If bar never gets distributed outside of
>>my company, then no one outside of my company has any right to view,
>>use, or copy the bar source code.
>>
>>You can find examples where Mr. Stallman explicitly endorses this
>>viewpoint[1], as the GPL only comes into play when you try to distribute
>>software.  Private modifications do not have to be released.
>>    
>>
>
>Again, I very explicitly never said anything to contradict this.
>
>  
>
>>This is one of the reasons that there was some concern about ASPs
>>(Application Service Providers) and Web Services with regards to Free
>>Software a while back, and why Affero[2] released their new license, the
>>Affero General Public License[3].  The Affero GPL's primary difference
>>from the GNU GPL is the addition of a new clause, 2(d)[4], which closes
>>the loophole that allows people to take GPLed web applications and sell
>>the use of them (by using a website that runs them), without releasing
>>their changes.
>>    
>>
>
>Uhmm... that sounds like one of those cases in which it's difficult to
>determine if something is a "derivative work".  This is why you should
>never touch GPLed code unless you explicit want your own code to be GPLed
>or have a slew of lawyers to dissect the nuances in the license and how
>they *think* it applies to your situation.  With most other licenses you
>don't have this fear.
>
>Again, before this thread spins too far out of control you should keep in
>mind that I'm not against open source or free software.  I just dislike
>the GPL, and understand that corporations are so wary of it that many
>won't let you touch it, even when there should be no risk.
>

And I am not a against proprietary software or other licenses, however 
perpetuating the fear and uncertianty of the GPL does little to help the 
endorsement of free software in general especially considering how much 
open source software is published under the GPL.

As an author and contributor of several free programs I have generally 
used the GPL because for the things I worked on, either they were 
already published under the GPL before I took them up or I felt that, 
for that specific instance, the GPL best suited the application.  I 
however am not a GPL purist who thinks all software should be written 
under the GPL, nor all open source software written under the GPL.  I 
don't have problems with any of the public licenses, the author of the 
software should have the final say in what that software is used for.  
If they couldn't give a damn if I take the software and make millions 
off of it with no recompense to them then fine, if they choose a license 
that makes the software completely unusable by me because of what I want 
to try and do with it, then fine again, it is their right to place those 
restrictions on their work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tetherow                           tetherow at nicusa.com
Director of Development
NIC Labs (PSSG)                        http://www.nicusa.com