Funambol CEO Fabrizio Capobianco is scheduled to announce a draft version of a modified GPL today that would add a provision requiring service providers to distribute changes to code, even if they don’t “distribute” the code beyond their own servers. Capobianco calls this the Honest Public License (HPL), and the additional provision could add an entirely new wrinkle to free software.
Extending the GPL for Application Service Providers
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
this is getting out of control, way out of control!
One of the strengths of GPL-licensed software is that you can modify the code for internal use; requiring a release of source code even for internal apps is a bad idea.
Besides that, this would be totally impossible to actually enforce.
But it isn’t really for internal use in the case they are speaking of.
If I take a GPL’d program that, say, designs ergonomic furniture, and I heavily modify it and use it to design even better ergonomic furniture and then sell the furniture, that’s fine. I don’t have to show the code to anyone. Neither the GPL or this HPL has a problem with that.
If I let people use the modified program over the net to design their own furniture, then technically, I’m not distributing the program. The program is still running on my computer, and no one elses. Technically, the user is just asking me questions, and I’m running the program myself to find the answers, and then telling them what those answers are (and possibly charging them a fee).
I believe this is allowed under the GPL, but IMO it is worse than just distributing binaries without code. A person can take your GPL’d code, modify it, charge you to use it, and not let you see the modifications, just because you are using it over the net. It’s not Free or free. That’s what this HPL is trying to address.
Take for example an online content management system, or more to-the-point: Blog software.
A lot of web hosting companies now-a-days are offering such packages inclusive with your hosting account and a great many of them are open source packages.
A license such as the HPL would prevent the hosting companies from taking those free packages and charging their customers to have it bundled with their hosting service.
Don’t take my example litterally because in reality it’s not entirely true. Plus if you wanted to you can install those CMS/Blog packages yourself.
If you’re developing in-house software, that doesn’t qualify as a “service provider” and I don’t think you’ll be charging yourself or your employer for an in-house service.
I’m, almost certain I remember seeing a version of the GPL with an extra clause for webapps somewhere…
>I’m, almost certain I remember seeing a version of the GPL with an extra clause for webapps somewhere…
yes, it’s called “Affero General Public License” for more information see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
And with GPLv3 you will be able to do the same with “Additional Terms” (Section 7.b.4).
So i would say it’s unnecessary to create yet another license because there are already licenses which does exactly this job.
Edited 2006-08-14 19:15
Yeah, that’s the one.
to see how the “Four Freedom” fans justify this in terms of their philosophy.
Anyway, as already said, a forced-redistribution clause is unenforcable under copyright law.
Which, if Tim O’Reilley’s awfully named “Web 2.0” ever does occur, the “free” software movement is in for a big disappointment.
I can see why they created their own fork of GPL2, GPL3 goes too far and will likely do more harm than good by splitting the community. This “only get these webapps” approach is a much more modest extension of GPL2 than GPL3 with the messy DRM clause.
I still disagree with it. The reason is that, just like GPL3 encroaches on hardware, this clause encroaches on a user’s output. A user’s data does not belong to the author of a piece of software, and what they do with it is their business.
If a company is dead set on keeping some extension secret, they will find a way to do it with new GPL/HPL provisions. They could just move their changes into a separate program and pipe the output… whatever.
Edited 2006-08-14 19:44
Why would a service provider even adopt that. Hey lets stiffle everything in the name of the GPL.
Howdy all
The entire reason all the open source CMS/blog/webapp sites have sprung up is that coperations are allowed to “use” the software for it`s intended purpose, kinda like providing an interface in software terms.
Now since they can do this for little or very little effort is a HUGE win for these corperations (inc ISPs), the software itself attracts a large following and inturn becomes activly developed and everyone is happy.
Now enter the extreemists, they take this currently happy co-existance and find it does not meet their idiological ideals and so must find a way to repress the way others choose to live their lives.
All you will find IF anyone uses this sort of license is that those web applications will die a slow death due to any business not wanting to touch it.
It`s kind of sad when you get to my age and you realise life is about compromise, sure it`s nice to have ideals or beliefs but the only way to win people over to your way of thinking is by example and time not ramming your beliefs down someone’s neck and not taking no for an answer.
Take a look through the zealotry people, open source good extreemism bad m`kay!
P.S. By the way, free software is a nice pipe dream that maybe when we end all wars and finally co-exist in peace and end famine and disease might take hold but untill then …..