<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I raised this a while ago and it has been brought up again in relation
to Sveasoft who are making "pre-release" distributions with extra
conditions.<br>
[The point of this message is not to discuss whether what Sveasoft are
actually doing is legal, but to discuss what the GPL permits and
requires]<br>
<br>
Creative commons have a very nice wizard
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://creativecommons.org/license/">http://creativecommons.org/license/</a> that helps you choose a license.<br>
<br>
The GPL is only one license but it has options, perhaps the FSF should
produce a web page that lets you select some options and then shows you
your obligations and then gives borderline examples of what would and
would not fulfil those obligations.<br>
<br>
Read on to see the confusion that is ensueing with people who are
trying to understand the GPL,<br>
<br>
Samuel Liddicott wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid40F39D55.1050603@liddicott.com" type="cite">I
would welcome more clarification on what constitutes a distribution. If
a small company modifies and builds and runs GPL software on a single
computer they are not required to release the source as the derivative
work is not being distributed. Arguably a larger company (having more
than one PC) may use the modified GPL software across the company
without releasing source - even if they software is used to provide a
public or commercial service - because the derivative work is not being
distributed. <br>
Certainly if the GPL derivative code were made available to another
company this would count as a distribution. What about to a different
department? What about a different group company? What about to club
members? What if the club is a company? What if the club is a company
AND a club of companies?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is clearly still a lot of confusion over what constitues a
"distribution". If you want to get a better idea of the confusion that
exists read the full slashdot story and related links at <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/2255239&tid=193&tid=1">http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/21/2255239&tid=193&tid=1</a><br>
<br>
This issue is extremely important as many rights and obligations of the
GPL center at the act of "distribution"<br>
<br>
I wish someone from the FSF legal team would offer some clarification
here before some wider precedents are made in relation to the recent
strategy of:<br>
"If you excercise your rights under the GPL you are excommunicated from
your supplier and are alone with your source."<br>
<br>
This has been tried to some degree by RedHat with their enterprise
linux, I understand that if you made a distribution of the code you
received with your support contract that your support contract was then
terminated. I hope to be corrected in this if I am wrong, but it would
be a worrying trend; <br>
- but even worse would be the closed-club sharing that is not quite a
distribution at all.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A good summary of the actual situation is at:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115310&cid=9766597">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115310&cid=9766597</a><br>
<br>
which quotes from Sveasoft:<br>
"<i>We release two versions of firmware at Sveasoft, public and
pre-release.<br>
<br>
Subscribers
can redistribute public versions of firmware to anyone they choose to
without any change in their subscription rights. When you redistribute
public firmware you must offer both source code and binaries or you
violate the GPL license. Other than this caveat you can redistribute
whenever and to whomever you choose.<br>
<br>
The policy for pre-release
firmware is different. You can also choose to redistribute pre-release
firmware under the GPL. You must also offer both source code and
binaries as with the public releases. Should you choose to redistribute
pre-release versions however, your subscription rights terminate and
you will not have access to the Sveasoft forums or future firmware
pre-releases afterwards."<br>
<br>
</i>Sveasoft also seem to charge $49 for a CD-ROM of the source to the
"pre-release"<br>
<br>
The slashdot user "BJH" goes on to say:<br>
"2) Sveasoft make a distinction between pre-release and public release
versions of the firmware. This is probably based on the idea that you
do not have to provide source code if you're distributing software
purely within your own organization (i.e. not publically distributing
it). However, that right is not clearly defined in the GPL, and indeed
section 6 states that:<br>
<i>6. Each time you redistribute the Program
(or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or
modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. <b>You may
not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
rights granted herein.</b> You are not responsible for enforcing
compliance by third parties to this License.</i><br>
In
my opinion, Sveasoft's artificial distinction between pre-release and
public release firmware comes into conflict with this section."<br>
<br>
user "mdsft13" writes:<br>
" "Now under the terms of the license for access to the server they can
cancel your server account if you redistribute."<br>
<br>
It's still a restriction on *distribution* which they can't do and be
complying with the GPL. "<br>
<br>
<br>
user "black mariah" sees it thus:<br>
" They're not putting restrictions on the redistribution. They're
putting
restrictions on their own subscriptions. In order to be a subscriber,
you have to abide by their terms. One of those terms is not
redistributing the source. If you choose to distribute the source, it
simply terminates your subscription. This may not be in the spirit of
the GPL (not that I care much), but at least from my interpretation is
is well within the letter of the GPL.
"<br>
<br>
<br>
"hazem" points out in:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115310&cid=9766834">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115310&cid=9766834</a><br>
" "T<i>he GPL only kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE your modifications."</i><br>
<br>
My
thoughts exactly. Now suppose someone like Sveasoft wants to have beta
testers of their product, and to become one, you pay $49. You're now
part of the club and maybe could be considered part of the organization.<br>
<br>
So,
they send you binaries to test. Are you considered internal to the
organization now? Or is this an external distribution? If it's the
former, they may not have to give you the source at all. And if they do
give you the source, they could "kick you out of the club" if you chose
to distribute that source that is in beta form. If it's the latter,
then what actually constitutes "in-house" vs a public distribution?"<br>
<br>
<br>
and the reply to that is:<br>
"Irrelevant. Any such arrangement (such as a contract of employment) is
an additional restriction and violates the GPL. There's no such thing
as 'in-house' distribution under the GPL."<br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115310&cid=9767294">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115310&cid=9767294</a><br>
Is also worth reading.<br>
<br>
I hope you're not too confused, I know I am.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>