GPL - Is it required to post source code to the Public - when is a software released?
The GPL FAQ "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?" contains this statement (emphasis by me)
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 applies to organizations
(including companies), too; an organization can make a modified
version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the
organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way,
the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you.
My question is, when is the condition release to the public met / fullfilled?
Let us assume that a website is using a modified PHP-CMS that is licensed under the gpl. Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
gpl source-code release
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
add a comment |
The GPL FAQ "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?" contains this statement (emphasis by me)
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 applies to organizations
(including companies), too; an organization can make a modified
version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the
organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way,
the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you.
My question is, when is the condition release to the public met / fullfilled?
Let us assume that a website is using a modified PHP-CMS that is licensed under the gpl. Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
gpl source-code release
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
4
The GPLv3 has clarified matters a bit by introducing the term conveying instead of releasing or publishing. The license allows conveying as something that enables others to make or receive a copy of the software. Mere interaction with a program is not conveying.
– amon
13 hours ago
Also note that it does not state when or how to make the modified source code available. IMHO, in many cases it happens upon request of a user only. This may go unnoticed for years.
– Thomas Weller
10 hours ago
I once heard somewhere that it is sufficient to print the code on paper to fullfill the requirement to provide the code. Is that the case?
– surfmuggle
7 hours ago
@surfmuggle That would make a decent new question; please feel free to make a new post to ask it!
– apsillers♦
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The GPL FAQ "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?" contains this statement (emphasis by me)
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 applies to organizations
(including companies), too; an organization can make a modified
version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the
organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way,
the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you.
My question is, when is the condition release to the public met / fullfilled?
Let us assume that a website is using a modified PHP-CMS that is licensed under the gpl. Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
gpl source-code release
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
The GPL FAQ "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?" contains this statement (emphasis by me)
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 applies to organizations
(including companies), too; an organization can make a modified
version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the
organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way,
the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you.
My question is, when is the condition release to the public met / fullfilled?
Let us assume that a website is using a modified PHP-CMS that is licensed under the gpl. Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
gpl source-code release
gpl source-code release
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
asked 15 hours ago
surfmugglesurfmuggle
1498
1498
4
The GPLv3 has clarified matters a bit by introducing the term conveying instead of releasing or publishing. The license allows conveying as something that enables others to make or receive a copy of the software. Mere interaction with a program is not conveying.
– amon
13 hours ago
Also note that it does not state when or how to make the modified source code available. IMHO, in many cases it happens upon request of a user only. This may go unnoticed for years.
– Thomas Weller
10 hours ago
I once heard somewhere that it is sufficient to print the code on paper to fullfill the requirement to provide the code. Is that the case?
– surfmuggle
7 hours ago
@surfmuggle That would make a decent new question; please feel free to make a new post to ask it!
– apsillers♦
6 hours ago
add a comment |
4
The GPLv3 has clarified matters a bit by introducing the term conveying instead of releasing or publishing. The license allows conveying as something that enables others to make or receive a copy of the software. Mere interaction with a program is not conveying.
– amon
13 hours ago
Also note that it does not state when or how to make the modified source code available. IMHO, in many cases it happens upon request of a user only. This may go unnoticed for years.
– Thomas Weller
10 hours ago
I once heard somewhere that it is sufficient to print the code on paper to fullfill the requirement to provide the code. Is that the case?
– surfmuggle
7 hours ago
@surfmuggle That would make a decent new question; please feel free to make a new post to ask it!
– apsillers♦
6 hours ago
4
4
The GPLv3 has clarified matters a bit by introducing the term conveying instead of releasing or publishing. The license allows conveying as something that enables others to make or receive a copy of the software. Mere interaction with a program is not conveying.
– amon
13 hours ago
The GPLv3 has clarified matters a bit by introducing the term conveying instead of releasing or publishing. The license allows conveying as something that enables others to make or receive a copy of the software. Mere interaction with a program is not conveying.
– amon
13 hours ago
Also note that it does not state when or how to make the modified source code available. IMHO, in many cases it happens upon request of a user only. This may go unnoticed for years.
– Thomas Weller
10 hours ago
Also note that it does not state when or how to make the modified source code available. IMHO, in many cases it happens upon request of a user only. This may go unnoticed for years.
– Thomas Weller
10 hours ago
I once heard somewhere that it is sufficient to print the code on paper to fullfill the requirement to provide the code. Is that the case?
– surfmuggle
7 hours ago
I once heard somewhere that it is sufficient to print the code on paper to fullfill the requirement to provide the code. Is that the case?
– surfmuggle
7 hours ago
@surfmuggle That would make a decent new question; please feel free to make a new post to ask it!
– apsillers♦
6 hours ago
@surfmuggle That would make a decent new question; please feel free to make a new post to ask it!
– apsillers♦
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
No, it isn't, which is why the Affero GPL was developed. The AGPL extends the group of people who are entitled to have the source to include people who interact with the software over a network (see s13).
If the PHP code of this CMS is given or sold to some third-party, for example so that they can create their own website, that counts as conveyance under the regular (non-Affero) GPL (as well as under the AGPL).
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
I don't yet know of any jurisprudence or qualified advice as to what constitutes interaction remotely through a computer network. It seems clear to me that a logged-in user is interacting with it. Whether someone who enters an invalid username/password and thus fails to log in is interacting with it is an interesting question, and I don't think there's a definitive answer to it yet. My personal feeling is that it would include such non-users, but it's just my opinion.
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
1
I imagine you might be able to circumvent the "non-logged in user" problem by doing logins via a separate reverse proxy which is not AGPL'd - which may be desirable for reasons unrelated to copyright, see for example the BeyondCorp model. Of course, Google doesn't use AGPL'd software in the first place, so YMMV on the legal technicalities of doing this.
– Kevin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7968%2fgpl-is-it-required-to-post-source-code-to-the-public-when-is-a-software-rele%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
No, it isn't, which is why the Affero GPL was developed. The AGPL extends the group of people who are entitled to have the source to include people who interact with the software over a network (see s13).
If the PHP code of this CMS is given or sold to some third-party, for example so that they can create their own website, that counts as conveyance under the regular (non-Affero) GPL (as well as under the AGPL).
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
I don't yet know of any jurisprudence or qualified advice as to what constitutes interaction remotely through a computer network. It seems clear to me that a logged-in user is interacting with it. Whether someone who enters an invalid username/password and thus fails to log in is interacting with it is an interesting question, and I don't think there's a definitive answer to it yet. My personal feeling is that it would include such non-users, but it's just my opinion.
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
1
I imagine you might be able to circumvent the "non-logged in user" problem by doing logins via a separate reverse proxy which is not AGPL'd - which may be desirable for reasons unrelated to copyright, see for example the BeyondCorp model. Of course, Google doesn't use AGPL'd software in the first place, so YMMV on the legal technicalities of doing this.
– Kevin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
No, it isn't, which is why the Affero GPL was developed. The AGPL extends the group of people who are entitled to have the source to include people who interact with the software over a network (see s13).
If the PHP code of this CMS is given or sold to some third-party, for example so that they can create their own website, that counts as conveyance under the regular (non-Affero) GPL (as well as under the AGPL).
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
I don't yet know of any jurisprudence or qualified advice as to what constitutes interaction remotely through a computer network. It seems clear to me that a logged-in user is interacting with it. Whether someone who enters an invalid username/password and thus fails to log in is interacting with it is an interesting question, and I don't think there's a definitive answer to it yet. My personal feeling is that it would include such non-users, but it's just my opinion.
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
1
I imagine you might be able to circumvent the "non-logged in user" problem by doing logins via a separate reverse proxy which is not AGPL'd - which may be desirable for reasons unrelated to copyright, see for example the BeyondCorp model. Of course, Google doesn't use AGPL'd software in the first place, so YMMV on the legal technicalities of doing this.
– Kevin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
No, it isn't, which is why the Affero GPL was developed. The AGPL extends the group of people who are entitled to have the source to include people who interact with the software over a network (see s13).
If the PHP code of this CMS is given or sold to some third-party, for example so that they can create their own website, that counts as conveyance under the regular (non-Affero) GPL (as well as under the AGPL).
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
I don't yet know of any jurisprudence or qualified advice as to what constitutes interaction remotely through a computer network. It seems clear to me that a logged-in user is interacting with it. Whether someone who enters an invalid username/password and thus fails to log in is interacting with it is an interesting question, and I don't think there's a definitive answer to it yet. My personal feeling is that it would include such non-users, but it's just my opinion.
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
Is the fact, that the website which can be reached over the internet already enough to speak of a release of the server side software?
No, it isn't, which is why the Affero GPL was developed. The AGPL extends the group of people who are entitled to have the source to include people who interact with the software over a network (see s13).
If the PHP code of this CMS is given or sold to some third-party, for example so that they can create their own website, that counts as conveyance under the regular (non-Affero) GPL (as well as under the AGPL).
What if only logged in users can use the cms?
I don't yet know of any jurisprudence or qualified advice as to what constitutes interaction remotely through a computer network. It seems clear to me that a logged-in user is interacting with it. Whether someone who enters an invalid username/password and thus fails to log in is interacting with it is an interesting question, and I don't think there's a definitive answer to it yet. My personal feeling is that it would include such non-users, but it's just my opinion.
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
edited 13 hours ago
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
answered 14 hours ago
MadHatterMadHatter
8,8921836
8,8921836
1
I imagine you might be able to circumvent the "non-logged in user" problem by doing logins via a separate reverse proxy which is not AGPL'd - which may be desirable for reasons unrelated to copyright, see for example the BeyondCorp model. Of course, Google doesn't use AGPL'd software in the first place, so YMMV on the legal technicalities of doing this.
– Kevin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I imagine you might be able to circumvent the "non-logged in user" problem by doing logins via a separate reverse proxy which is not AGPL'd - which may be desirable for reasons unrelated to copyright, see for example the BeyondCorp model. Of course, Google doesn't use AGPL'd software in the first place, so YMMV on the legal technicalities of doing this.
– Kevin
11 hours ago
1
1
I imagine you might be able to circumvent the "non-logged in user" problem by doing logins via a separate reverse proxy which is not AGPL'd - which may be desirable for reasons unrelated to copyright, see for example the BeyondCorp model. Of course, Google doesn't use AGPL'd software in the first place, so YMMV on the legal technicalities of doing this.
– Kevin
11 hours ago
I imagine you might be able to circumvent the "non-logged in user" problem by doing logins via a separate reverse proxy which is not AGPL'd - which may be desirable for reasons unrelated to copyright, see for example the BeyondCorp model. Of course, Google doesn't use AGPL'd software in the first place, so YMMV on the legal technicalities of doing this.
– Kevin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7968%2fgpl-is-it-required-to-post-source-code-to-the-public-when-is-a-software-rele%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
The GPLv3 has clarified matters a bit by introducing the term conveying instead of releasing or publishing. The license allows conveying as something that enables others to make or receive a copy of the software. Mere interaction with a program is not conveying.
– amon
13 hours ago
Also note that it does not state when or how to make the modified source code available. IMHO, in many cases it happens upon request of a user only. This may go unnoticed for years.
– Thomas Weller
10 hours ago
I once heard somewhere that it is sufficient to print the code on paper to fullfill the requirement to provide the code. Is that the case?
– surfmuggle
7 hours ago
@surfmuggle That would make a decent new question; please feel free to make a new post to ask it!
– apsillers♦
6 hours ago