Re: About GPL3 req's for open src?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by xurai724 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Distributions include releases - not just source. If this was the case, we could commercialize anything GPL3 and simply never release the src code.

Read the FAQ on the GNU site itself (emphasis added):

A company is running a modified version of a GPLed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?

The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources. The situation is different when the modified program is licensed under the terms of the GNU Affero GPL.

Compare this to a situation where the web site contains or links to separate GPLed programs that are distributed to the user when they visit the web site (often written in JavaScript, but other languages are used as well). In this situation the source code for the programs being distributed must be released to the user under the terms of the GPL.

Is “convey” in GPLv3 the same thing as what GPLv2 means by “distribute”?

Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we learned that some jurisdictions used the word “distribute” in their own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented a new term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be caused by these differences.

[loramin]

And again, I'm speaking as someone who had the same misunderstanding, and was disabused of it in this long thread: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=395987

[PabloEdvardo]

This is a dangerous topic to broach simply because around here we don't complain or criticize the devs and their decisions. This is their project, their forum, and they prefer to keep it that way.

As a software developer and someone who at one time worked on the eqemulator codebase (prior to p99 even existing), I'm definitely of the belief that it should be kept open source including all custom derivatives, and that arguing the semantics over distribution in GPL would likely not hold up well in court.

However, the stable legal situation that p99 managed to carve out for itself means even if the situation is less-than-ideal to some of us, we appreciate knowing the project isn't being shut down tomorrow from a DMCA.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by PabloEdvardo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a dangerous topic to broach simply because around here we don't complain or criticize the devs and their decisions. This is their project, their forum, and they prefer to keep it that way.

Your second sentence is 100% correct, but your first sentence is way off. As you can see from the thread I linked, the staff here happily let me spout falsehoods about the project for pages and pages, without intervention.

Eventually I understood my mistake and apologized, but the point is they are extremely open to letting people say just about anything in these forums, as long as it isn't a direct attack on them (and sometimes even then).

Honestly, I wish they moderated suff like hate speech more, but in general I have great respect for how much they allow people to say nearly anything here.

[Chortles Snortles]

i bet you feel pretty silly right now

[xurai724]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Read the FAQ on the GNU site itself (emphasis added):

First, this was misread:

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.

This is simply saying you can use it INTERNALLY within the company, or for private use. IF you release it, you must open src it. This is why GPL3 is called the "viral" license, since any GPL3 item in your repo turns the ENTIRE codebase GPL3. That's the point of GPL3.

Even then, the second paragraph actually applies to authoritative code like that:

Compare this to a situation where the web site contains separate GPLed programs that are distributed to the user when they visit the web site (often written in JavaScript, but other languages are used as well).

It's not just the server sending static info - the client is making requests to the server => they could either (A) distribute nothing, or (B) respond with data (a distribution). Combined with this note directly from the GPL3 license (rather than your GNU general philosophy of their collection of licenses not specific to GPL3):

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

It can't get much more clear than that. From the GPL3 license, itself.

This quote is directly from the gpl-3 license while your quotes were generalizing GNU licenses (there are multiple kinds of GNU licensing - it's easy to make a misconception if you quote from a GNU Generalization rather than directly form GPL3).

GPL3 is called a "viral" license because once you add a GPL3 item to your code, ALL code (including modified) becomes GPL3. If it's GPL3'd, you need to open src it. Heck, if you had a GPL3 README text file, your entire codebase becomes GPL3. Distributions include binaries and server responses (called "Object Code" in the terms). Very plain. Very clear.

[loramin]

Look, regular law is hard, for lawyers. You're a non-lawyer, trying to grok highly technical law just by reading a few sentences ... and that doesn't work.

So don't trust me: trust the experts. Just google "gpl3 server loophole" and at the top of the very first link you will find (emphasis added):

When the copyleft AGPL was first published, many leaders in the open source community had something to say about the issue of a supposed loophole in the GPL open source license that allowed SaaS companies to integrate GPL open source libraries without sharing their code. This “loophole” was intentionally left in version 3 of the GPL due to the fact that letting users interact with a piece of software over the network does not constitute distribution.

[Kich867]

I feel like this is just an elaborate troll. If P99 was actually legally obligated to do anything, instead of making a weird thinly veiled threat post on the forums, you could've just forced them to do it.

[tristantio]

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html was made to get around the SaaS loophole - p99 server is SaaS and not distributed, sorry to deflate your balloon.

This is largely a failing on the licensing of eqemu itself (if it were AGPLv3, you'd likely have a current copy of p99 source available locally for the last 10 years).