Submitted by “There are both popular and unpopular ways of circumventing the Free Software Foundation’s General Public License. A very unpopular method, we’ve come to find out, is via promises of patent protection for users of specific software. However, if you’re looking to leverage Free Software without completely fulfilling the requirements of the license, a better method would be to exploit the software as a service loophole, which the latest draft of the GPL3 just legalized.”
I have always agreed with the SaaS option. I am no fan of the GPL3 but I think they did this part right.
I don’t consider a webservice a distribution. I see what they mean with the word “loophole”, but I don’t consider it a loophole.
They greyzone area would be if the service front end it self was GPL’ed in which case there would be some sort of distribution (the page is downloaded to the client).
But if the service frontend isn’t GPL’ed then there is no distribution of GPL’ed material. Google for an instance use GPL’ed software in the service backend but it conveys the data through a proprietary service frontend. Usually only the data is distributed in a webservice and the GPL specifically does not touch the data.
It may be a flaw but it is basically an intentional “flaw”.
Seems to me that it violates the spirit of GPL (but I don’t subscribe to the GPL religion, so perhaps its adherents see a way to rationalize this that escapes me).
As it is now, the GPL singles those that provide software via local binary distribution and holds them to a higher standard. Why? Whether one provides web services or provides local binaries, he’s still releasing software to the public for use by the public. According to GPL philosophy, users should have the freedom to alter the code and distribute it to others for free. I don’t see the underyling philisophical reason that this should apply to local binaries but not web services. Simply saying, “GPL only applies to ‘distribution’ of binaries” does not answer the question of *why* that must be so from a philisophical standpoint. I had thought that the reason was simply that GPL was written before web apps took off, and GPL simply needed to be updated to deal with that. But apparently there’s some philisophical reason to exclude covering web services. I’d be interested in hearing that reason.
Or is it that RMS is afraid of offending Google?
As you said, Google uses GPL in their webservices without releasing their own code. Google, a billion dollar company, can use all the GPL code they want and keep their own code closed, while some small timer that distributes his wares as local binaries has to release his entire code if he so much as uses a GPL quicksort routine. Seems whacky.
If we get to the point where the vast majority of software is web services, GPL will be irrelevant if this “loophole” persists. GPL will only cover OS kernels. :p This loophole is the size of Grand Canyon, yet RMS and his disciples are performing all kinds of legal/logical gymnastics to close the Novell/Microsoft loophole, which was merely an agreement between two consenting companies.
Oh well. Maybe once Microsoft makes an online version of Office using GPL code without releasing their own code, GPL adherents will feel differently. In fact, I’d say that Microsoft themselves could *force* this “loophole” to be closed, simply by announcing their intention to make such a package. RMS and his disciples would then close the web services “loophole” so fast, it’d make your head spin.
Edited 2007-03-30 16:59
This so-called ‘loophole’ is (in my opinion) intentional and in no way violates the spirit of the GPL. As a GPL adherent I rationalize it this way: The software that runs on my computer is mine, the software that runs on your computer is yours. If it’s on my computer I feel I have a right to be able to modify it to my liking; if it’s on your computer I feel that you have the right to modify it to your liking. What right do I have to software on your computer? It’s not mine.
What kind of applicability do the four essential freedoms have if you never obtain a copy of the program? Maybe freedom 0, but the rest make no sense.
People who think GPL fans would insist on web service software being opened up probably misunderstand the GPL’s philosophy. They might think that it really is about socialism.
I think it is probable that someone will decide that closed source web services are also bad for society and that he doesn’t want people do benefit from his code by exploiting this ‘loophole’. This fine gentleman will invent his own license and release software under it. He will either spawn another free software movement or he wont. Either way it wont bother the FSF and it wont bother me. It’s an entirely seperate issue.
Or is it that RMS is afraid of offending Google?
Ha! Heh heh, hehehe. Oh, that’s a good one.
RMS may be a lot of things, but even folks who don’t agree with him will admit that the guy has been doggedly sticking to his guns, regardless of who gets offended, for something like, I dunno, maybe 2 and a half decades?
I think you’re being too generous.
There’s a fundamental difference between software as a service, and software as a product. It’s the difference between renting and owning.
The GPL is intended to protect the freedom of users for software they ultimately own, and that includes the freedom to do whatever the hell you want with the software, including driving a business infrastructure.
People using software as a service do not in any way posess title to that software, therefore there is no reasonable expectation for a transfer of rights, which is a requirement for the GPL to be effective.
If people have an issue with their GPL software being used by proprietary web services, that’s not a loophole in the GPL. It simply means they’ve chosen the wrong license.
I see it this way, my country’s fair use provisions with regards to copyright material grant me the right to make copies of my own purchased DVD’s for whatever personal use I like, regardless of how the MPAA conglomerates feel about it. But I wouldn’t reasonably expect those same fair use provisions to apply to DVDs I rent from Blockbuster, and I would hardly refer to movie rentals as a loophole around fair use provisions.
I’m not sure but if that would be the case wouldn’t it be illegal for GPL machines to talk to non-GPL machines since their network stacks might have different licensing? You are using that machine as a service, one example would be routing. If you try licensing the data that has been generated by a GPL service back end you wouldn’t be allowed o communicate with the other machine on the network. To me there is no difference between TCP sockets, RPC or SOAP like invocations.
Your network stack found its origin in the BSD system…
OK so he didn’t choose the best possible example, but you can probably see where he’s coming from.
I wasn’t talking about concepts but actual implementation and you don’t know my stack
. Just to be on the safe side yes i know the linux kernel devs and MS devs took the BSD sockets code and relicensed it. And yes i think that was a good thing since it set standards. I was trying to make a point on what can be considered a service and the ramifications if the GPL3 did restrict use over networks, thus rendering all this FUD into non issue.
That’s the “web services” license.
”
13. Use with the Affero General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link any covered work with a work licensed under version 2 of the Affero General Public License, and to convey the resulting combination. The terms of this License will continue to apply to your covered work but will not apply to the work with which it is linked, which will remain governed by the Affero General Public License.
“
I have no idea why this so-called “loophole” would mean the GPL has not networked future.
If SAAS and complex Web Applications become the default software format of the future, then the GPL will restrict itself to only being useful when applied to some binary OS stub that initialises a network client.
The author is claiming that in the future 75% of software will be a web service. The GPL doesn’t cover web services…. you take GPL’d software and change it in-house w/o redistributing your code, and only present a proprietary interface.
He says that this is a common way to ‘get around’ the GPL, and that it’s very common now. I think the author implies, that it’s so common, that you can’t really change the GPL to ‘open up’ that development now. So it can’t be changed to be ‘networked’….. or “The GPL Has No (Networked) Future.”
p.s. If I’m interpreting this wrong…. be nice :>
The phrase “just legalized” is also inaccurate. A draft of license legalizes nothing. Only the final version can do anything like that.
The original plan was to require webservices to keep a functionality to download its source code. But why not require that for ALL software?
Take the OLPC f.ex., there you have a special button on the keyboard to get the source code of the currently running activity. Seems like a great UI choice.
I can’t see that forcing all GPL software to have this functionality would be wrong. And then the SaaS “loophole” would go away too without special mention of networks or stuff.
…there you have a special button on the keyboard to get the source code of the currently running activity
/me Dreams of a world where one could press a keyboard button to debug the current application and runtime-compile in extra features on the fly. Of course, this would work better with an interpreted, globally type-safe OS. (like Singularity), also you’d need the source for all your apps so an OSS version of Sing. would be great
.
Edited: clarification.
Edited 2007-03-30 15:43
Two words: Lisp OS.
Okay, technically three words. Or, if you want to get technical eighteen or nineteen.
Lisp?
As in:
Lisp is a shitty programming language.
lots of inane stupid parentheses
(it’s) lousy. it should be put-down.
like it? stupid person.
lost in a sea of parentheses
lisp is strictly prehistoric
loved by idiots and ‘special’ people (no offence meant, really!)
It’s not as if I’m in much of a position to judge the language. My only experience of it is with the script-fu derivative, but that was enough for one lifetime thanks.
[this is meant as joke BTW. Don’t flame me to hell. Please]
“If we get to the point where the vast majority of software is web services, GPL will be irrelevant if this “loophole” persists. GPL will only cover OS kernels. :p This loophole is the size of Grand Canyon, yet RMS and his disciples are performing all kinds of legal/logical gymnastics to close the Novell/Microsoft loophole, which was merely an agreement between two consenting companies.”
In its current form, Web Services are much less efficient than desktop apps. SaaS is not a threat to the GPL.
The real threat is the new clause to prevent deals like the Novell deal. As it is worded, any Linux distro can be prevented from distributing GPL3 software. MS doesn’t even need to win a patent suit, they just have to settle to remove that companies ability to distribute since the terms of the settlement would not be extended to everyone.
Just because they release the GPL3 does not mean it is automatically going to switch everything from GPL2 to it. There are many things like the Linux kernel that say they are only released under 2 so the author would have to decide to allow it to be changed or not. The other thing is just because 3 is released doesn’t mean people can’t still use 2, if I release new software a year from now I can still choose to use 2 if I want. People may wish to talk to a lawyer before using any loopholes.
It isn’t necessarily clear cut.
Say you send me an email, “Tom make me a cool logo!”.
I open up photoshop and create a really cool logo (not happening with my skills!). I reply to your email with the photo attached.
Should you have the source to my app? Have you connected to my app over the network?
That’s basically the philosphy behind not extending the GPL to networked apps.
However, things are becoming more complex than that. With Ajax, Java, etc., some of the code may actually be running on your machine. Think of Google office. If this software is not GPL, you run the risk of using the application to create documents, and then one day Google Office goes away. You are stuck if you do not have the code.
Tough stuff to consider.
EXACTLY!
Your first analogy is simply a service like Google Search. Your other analogy is like a webbased calendar or office application. And the later one (Ajax, Java, SOAP etc.) is clearly a greyzone area where I believe the GPL could and should be enhanced. But the former one is a simple service without any kind of distribution of software – the GPL should never kick in in those situations.
The question is: Where do we draw the line between distribution of software and a service? And where do we draw the line between backend end frontend?
Ooh I can already feel the GPLv4 flames starting to heat up. Drawing a balanced line through the online application will be tricky.
There is the added complication that if online application sources are released, the end user still wouldn’t be able to configure his interface/fix bugs, because all the software is run on the google servers. And any security patches / community code will (probably) never be applied to online apps by commercial companies because of ‘security concerns’. Public Data Access APIs however…
There is a difference between you creating a logo and emailing it, and distributing the ability for users to interact with the software directly over the network.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that GPL should extend to apps delivered as services.
Apps provided as internet services *are* going to become more of a day to day reality.
And this is exactly the sort of generalized tit for tat issue that I feel lies squarely in that area that the GPL should address.
RMS is concerned about DRM. Linus thinks that the Novell/MS deal is a better reason to justify a new license.
But I can’t help but feel that web services are the greatest loophole that threatens the open exchange of software.
I’ve come out pretty strongly about the dangers of GPLv3 dividing the community, and I still feel that way.
But who objected to the web services clause?
My only objection to it was that it was optional, and thereby threatened to fracture even the license of which it would have been, optionally, a part.
I would have had no objection to it having been a static part of the license.
@MollyC Nice to see your posting.
“GPL religion”. I have checked and double checked GPL is a license http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html its actually just a shortened version of “GNU General Public License” FYI.
“Fear of Google” I’m a little confused as to why RMS or anyone associated with Linux should be *scared* of Google. RMS does not as far as I am aware run a competing search engine. The only thing I can think of is that the search engine runs on Linux, although I’m pretty certain there has been discussion of moving to Solaris. I’m also not sure of how large Google’s contribution is to Open-source but I think its relatively small other than a good example of use. They are contributers to The Summer of Code and Firefox, but that is of mutual benefit. I’m also aware that they released into Open-source a OCR which I have been interested in. The only other thing I can think of is they wrote some code for WINE to make Google-earth run on Linux. They are not large contributers like Red Hat; Sun; IBM.
“Anti-Microsoft.” I’m sure Anti-Microsoft sentiment not only extends beyond that of a Linux users, Microsoft is not a *nice* company by any means. I suspect in this case you are trying to trivialize the Novell-Microsoft agreement. The reality is that this is discussed in the article in question, particularly about closing the patent loophole and is put there for everyone to see. Why this is considered a bad thing.
The misunderstanding.
=====================
I’d be temped to say some are bending the truth. The article states clearly what the problem is. An application designed to work over the internet is not covered by the Current GPL3 revision. i.e. I put a web-frontend on GIMP make it work over the net GPL doesn’t cover that. It is not saying that if you run an open-source OS you *have* to open source your web application you wrote they are two different things.
Edited 2007-03-30 20:03
Actually, the “download button” clause would have possibly been unenforceable under copyright law, in which case GPL v3 would have started looking like a bad EULA, and the entire legal integrity of the license would have come into question.