I know that under a software under GPL when distributed must disclose the code. the question if I only renting out the software rather than sell or give away for period of time only after that will taken back by me .
in such case do still need to disclose the code?
Thing is - under GPL The GNU General Public License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program–to make sure it remains free software for all its users.
So what you suggest hardly seems possible.
That’s a contradiction. If you license your code under the GPL, then the recipient has the right to receive the source and to pass it on in conformity with the GPL. So if you are renting the software, it would not be a GPL scheme.
the problem is that but my program is running under linux . in linux when we distributed we must open source code.
to make it clearer , here the scenario . I renting out a machine that run on a program written by me running on linux . this is renting only (the customer do not own anything from software to data). so the the whole machine is property of me . in this situation do I still have the obligation to open source ? since no distribution action occur , I assume that I still have to the rights not to show the program code.
am I right here?
No, this is where you are mistaken. Just running a program on Linux doesn’t mean the program has to be GPL. Lots of proprietary programs run on Linux.
to make it clearer , here the scenario . I renting out a machine that run on a program written by me running on linux . this is renting only (the customer do not own anything from software to data). so the the whole machine is property of me . in this situation do I still have the obligation to open source ? since no distribution action occur , I assume that I still have to the rights not to show the program code.
am I right here?
If you are renting the machine, then you are not distributing any software. The machine still belongs to you, so the customer is not receiving the software. So the GPL is not required to be applied here.
thanks . your explanation clear my worried rotfl!
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:36:02 +0000, kobolds wrote:
> I know that under a software under GPL when distributed must disclose
> the code. the question if I only renting out the software rather than
> sell or give away for period of time only after that will taken back by
> me .
>
> in such case do still need to disclose the code?
Not a lawyer, but renting = distribution, so yes, you still must share
the code. There isn’t a loophole there, and even if there is, the spirit
of the GPL is pretty clear - and you will not make friends by trying to
circumvent the authors’ intentions (or the software developer’s rights).
Jim
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 04:36 +0000, kobolds wrote:
> I know that under a software under GPL when distributed must disclose
> the code. the question if I only renting out the software rather than
> sell or give away for period of time only after that will taken back by
> me .
>
> in such case do still need to disclose the code?
Yes. You have to make the source available by some way.
That does NOT mean you have to deliver it with the rented product…
just provide a way to get to it at no extra charge (apart from charges
for media/handling/support). Yes… you CAN charge for delivery…
you just can’t restrict somebody else from distributing the source
by some other means (including freely on the Internet).
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 07:06 +0000, ken yap wrote:
> kobolds;1907063 Wrote:
> > the problem is that but my program is running under linux . in linux
> > when we distributed we must open source code.
>
> No, this is where you are mistaken. Just running a program on Linux
> doesn’t mean the program has to be GPL. Lots of proprietary programs run
> on Linux.
>
> > to make it clearer , here the scenario . I renting out a machine that
> > run on a program written by me running on linux . this is renting only
> > (the customer do not own anything from software to data). so the the
> > whole machine is property of me . in this situation do I still have the
> > obligation to open source ? since no distribution action occur , I
> > assume that I still have to the rights not to show the program code.
> >
> > am I right here?
>
> If you are renting the machine, then you are not distributing any
> software. The machine still belongs to you, so the customer is not
> receiving the software. So the GPL is not required to be applied here.
Wrong. If a device is using GPL software then access to that software
must be available somehow to the user of the device… even if
the user is just renting. Now if the user is using a service and
that service is using devices with free software binaries on it… then
the source has to be available to the service provider, but NOT to the
user of the service (if that makes sense… probably an easier way to
say that). If as a part of that service, a product is delivered that
has free software in it… that free software again must be made
available to the user.
No, that’s where you are wrong. If you were right, every hosting provider that uses Linux and provides shell access to the machine would have to provide a copy of the sources. The binaries are not given to the customer as part of the agreement. The fact that the customer has access to it in the course of normal use doesn’t make it software distribution. If the customer is tempted to ftp the binary of groff off the machine, just make it forbidden by the service agreement.
If I lend my machine to my friend I don’t have to give him a source DVD. I’m not distributing software to him, he’s just using my machine’s power, for no consideration in return. Well, maybe a beer.
In any case such binaries are the standard ones and no modifications have been made by the hosting provider, so the sources are out in the open. The spirit of the GPL has not been violated.
Contrast this to what Cisco did, which was to take GPLed programs, modify them, and put the binaries inside routers and other embedded equipment, and then not distribute their changes.
And in any case it is still irrelevant to the OP, because what is in question is whether he has to provide source for his program. Since he has chosen not to GPL it, he doesn’t have to.
But, just in case you are right, I’m going to label every DVD I have around the place with a notice: Dear thieves, if you take this DVD, the source DVD for this can be found on the 3rd shelf on the bookcase. ;);)
To clarify ken_yap’s point, GPL only comes into play under copyright provisions. If you are renting or lending, that is not distribution (assuming you have the right to that work in the first place, which the GPL would provide.)
If you buy a CD, you can make a copy of it to play on your MP3 player, because you effectively have a personal license to that work. But if you borrow a CD from the public library, you are not entitled to make a copy of it, because you don’t have a personal license to that work.
Nor are you entitled to copy DVDs you rent from the video store, just because you have the physical DVD. Copyright legislation doesn’t consider that distribution of protected work.
The GPL doesn’t come into play unless you have, effectively, transferred an irrevokable copy of the software to another party.
Possession is not distribution.
Just my 2c…
Cheers,
KV