Running modified GPL software on a server
rex.eas...@gmail.com
I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on
a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my
shopping website), you don't have to GPL your modifications. Can anyone
point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or another
authority?
Thanks!
Rex
Alfred M. Szmidt
The GUN General Public License has the offical "statement" about this.
Notable section 3 of GPLv2.
rex.eas...@gmail.com
"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access
to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of
the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy
the source along with the object code."
This seems to mean that it would NOT be OK to keep the code
proprietary, counter to what I've seen on this forum before.
But maybe it's this: the person accessing my website would not have
access to the software itself; they would only be able to use it in
narrow ways the webmaster has defined. In other words, it wouldn't be
OK to modify Emacs and allow people full remote use of it on my server
without giving out the source, but it would be OK to modify MySQL so
people can do simple searchbox queries through HTTP that query my
customized database. Does that sound right?
Alfred M. Szmidt
source code.
John Hasler
> I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a
> server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping
> website), you don't have to GPL your modifications.
It's bloody well obvious. Read the license.
> Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or
> another authority?
Ask your lawyer.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
John Hasler
> Do you mean this?
Who is "you"? Are you replying to someone in particular? Hint: this is
Usenet, not a "forum".
> In other words, it wouldn't be OK to modify Emacs and allow people full
> remote use of it on my server without giving out the source, but it would
> be OK to modify MySQL so people can do simple searchbox queries through
> HTTP that query my customized database. Does that sound right?
No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
copies of the binaries to. Allowing someone to run the software remotely
does not involve giving them copies of anything. Therefor you do not need
to supply copies of the Emacs source to people who run it remotely on your
server. The same applies to MySQL or any other GPL software.
Read the license. If you can't understand it consult an attorney.
Alexander Terekhov
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
> copies of the binaries to.
17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise
dispose of the possession of that copy. 106(3) is severely limited
by the "exception" to 106(3) in section 109. The reason why 106(3)
is listed in 106 is to provide legal basis to punish not only
somebody who pirates works and who may not even try or want to
distribute pirated copies, but also somebody who distributes pirated
copies to the public that were unlawfully made by another. Now,
GNUtians, you tell me how does that apply to the GPL (not-a-contract
according to the FSF). Neither RMS nor Moglen can explain it.
Perhaps you can. I doubt it.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> John Hasler wrote:
> [...]
>> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
>> copies of the binaries to.
>
> 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
> WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise
> dispose of the possession of that copy.
"lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this
applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For
those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL
allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_
the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you
to do any distribution of them without license.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this
> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
> the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For
> those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL
> allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_
> the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you
> to do any distribution of them without license.
Hey dak, Lee Hollaar the author of
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his
treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief
Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee)
told you several times in the past that your understanding of
"first sale" is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked
with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to
the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent
issues as a Committee Fellow had to say about the GNU legal nonsense
version 3 (note that most of it applies to GNU legal nonsense
version 2 as well).
comment 388: Not a correct statement of copyright law
Regarding the text: However, nothing else grants you permission to
propagate or modify the Program or any covered works.
In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s3
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at least in the
United States. With respect to "propagate", it is likely a tautology
because of the defintion of "propagate" covering only things "that
require permission under applicable copyright law". But for "modify",
17 U.S.C. 117 permits the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to
make an "adaptation" in particular circumstances, and makes it clear
that making that adaptation does not "infringe copyright if you do not
accept this License." It also does not seem to recognize the "first
sale" doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that permits the transfer of
a lawfully-made copy "without the authority of the copyright owner".
Perhaps the interplay between the definition of "propagate" and this
section covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in fact,
misleads one in thinking that the only way to redistribute a lawful
copy is to accept the License.
noted by hollaar
comment 389: Not a correct statement
Regarding the text: You may not propagate, modify or sublicense the
Program except as expressly provided under this License.
In section: gpl3.termination.p0.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
As I noted in more detail in my comments on Paragraph 9, this is not
an accurate statement. In the United States, 17 U.S.C. 109 ("first
sale") and 117 ("computer programs") allow the owner of a
lawfully-made copy to modify it in certain circumstances and to
redistribute it without permission of the copyright owner.
noted by hollaar
comment 390: Permission may not be required for use
Regarding the text: which means permission for use
In section: gpl3.licensecompat.p6.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
In the United States, at least, permission may not be required to use
a computer program if the user is the lawful owner of a copy. See 17
U.S.C. 117. United States copyright law does not give the copyright
owner a right to control use (although the DMCA does provide sort of
an access right if the information is protected by DRM, see 17 U.S.C.
1201(a), which does not apply here because of the anti-DRM language).
Even if you regard the "use" of the computer program as a
"reproduction" because it is being copied into memory (see MAI v.
Peak, http://digital-law-online.info/cases/26PQ2D1458.htm), that
reproduction is specifically allowed by 17 U.S.C. 117 for the lawful
owner of the copy of the computer program.
noted by hollaar
comment 570: Just saying it doesn't make it so
Regarding the text: No covered work constitutes part of an effective
technological protection measure
In section: gpl3.drm.p1.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
A covered work will be "part of an effective technological protection
measure" (a term that mimics the DMCA "technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work", much like "derived from"
mimics "derivative work") based on what it does, not what you say. For
example, you can't exempt yourself from patent law by simply stating
that the "covered work is not a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter" (the classes of patentable things in the United
States).
noted by hollaar
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this
>> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
>> the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. For
>> those copies, your rights are restricted by the license. The GPL
>> allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_
>> the source code (or rights to it). Copyright law does not permit you
>> to do any distribution of them without license.
>
> Hey dak, Lee Hollaar the author of
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his
> treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief
> Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee)
> told you several times in the past that your understanding of
> "first sale" is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked
> with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to
> the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent
> issues as a Committee Fellow had to say about the GNU legal nonsense
> version 3 (note that most of it applies to GNU legal nonsense
> version 2 as well).
You are a practical joker. Do you even _read_ what you cite? Hollaar
is here talking about the right to modify, not the right to copy. And
certainly not about "first sale".
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > [...]
> >> No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
> >> copies of the binaries to.
> >
> > 17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
> > WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise
> > dispose of the possession of that copy.
>
> "lawfully made", "dispose of", "possession". It is clear that this
> applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
> the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself. ["the
> license"]
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 (about 109): "any resale of an illegally
''pirated'' phonorecord would be an infringement, but the
disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory
licensing provisions of section 115 would not."
DMCA Section 104 Report: (ignoring Red Hat's "concerns" orticulated
by Red Hat attorneys during testimony***)
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
floppy disk, Zip™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
109."
***) < quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >
Red Hat, Inc.:
Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
licensor to require [blah blah]
Time Warner, Inc.:
We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.
Library Associations:
First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
because of changing habits due to new inventions and
discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
throughout society.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
You're a real idiot.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803
<quote author=Hollaar>
In article <43DB926D...@web.de> tere...@web.de writes:
>"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
>within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised,
>but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the
>license permits." [quoting Eben Moglen]
That might be true IF "she doesn't have any right to act at all except
as the license permits." But as I have pointed out here and in my
comments to the FSF regarding the new GPLv3, that is not the case.
United States copyright law provides a number of exceptions to the
exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including "first sale" as
covered in 17 U.S.C. 109 and the right in 17 U.S.C. 117 of the owner
of a copy of a computer to reproduce or adapt it if necessary to use
it.
The convenient redefinition of things in the GPL reminds me of a
quote from Abraham Lincoln:
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
</quote>
regards,
alexander.
Isaac
> Rex writes:
>> I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a
>> server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping
>> website), you don't have to GPL your modifications.
>
> It's bloody well obvious. Read the license.
>
>> Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or
>> another authority?
>
> Ask your lawyer.
There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3.
I don't know if that happened, but somewhere in the FSF or RMS explanations
of why they needed a new version of the GPL ought to be some pretty official
discussion of this issue.
I heard somewhere the the MySQL people had their own opinion about this.
Isaac
John Hasler
> There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3.
There is no hint of it in the draft.