4 ms·

Can you use GPL code internally (ie run your backend) if you never publish it?

bo1024 5y ago
Let me add something to be clear. As I understand it, free software was always happy to let you or your company modify and use software for your own use. The philosophy was always about respecting the users of the software, so the licenses don't kick in until someone else uses it. The problem addressed by AGPL is that someone can use your software over a network connection without running it themselves: a loophole in GPL.
bo1024 5y ago
I believe so, and this is why the AGPL was created: > The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public. > The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
  So in theory, FAANG could make billions of a random person's GPL'd code and they'd never know.
  - thatfunkymunki 5y ago
    Spoiler alert: vast majority of FAANG systems run on Linux, making billions for them.
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      Don't they also provide a lot of developer time through patches?
      - notsureaboutpg 5y ago
        They sure do, but having worked at such a place, the companies are using way more free labor in open source software than they are giving back. In a way, everyone is doing that as well. I certainly use more free software than I contribute free software / dev time to free software
  - david_allison 5y ago
    This is a common occurrence. Modifications don't need to be shared back to the community if the software is used internally or behind a webserver.
  - kobalsky 5y ago
    amazon and google both created managed version of popular open source software like grafana and airflow and they are priced at a premium.
    - mrintegrity 5y ago
      grafana is agplv3 but grafana the company has a deal with amazon to grant them a special licence
  - noir_lord 5y ago
    AWS did this with a bunch of stuff including Elastic. https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-AWS https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-AWS
- RNCTX 5y ago
  The AGPL was created so that for-profit, not-free software can get free QA and put an open-source blurb on their landing page, be honest.
tomjen3 5y ago
Yes. You only need to share your code (or send it if asked) to people who get your modified code. If nobody gets it, then nobody can ask you for it.
throwaway2037 5y ago
Yes, it is valid. Consider for example: If you are an embedded hardware company. You modify GCC to support a new target / platform. Then, you can compile C code and create binaries for your embedded hardware. As long as GCC is not distributed, this is a perfectly valid use case for GPL'd software. Less abstract: Facebook famously has massive internal patches for MySQL, which is GPL'd. And of course, Google has massive internal patches for Linux kernel, which is also GPL'd.

Let me add something to be clear. As I understand it, free software was always happy to let you or your company modify and use software for your own use. The philosophy was always about respecting the users of the software, so the licenses don't kick in until someone else uses it. The problem addressed by AGPL is that someone can use your software over a network connection without running it themselves: a loophole in GPL.

bo1024 5y ago

I believe so, and this is why the AGPL was created: > The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public. > The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

sydthrowaway 5y ago
So in theory, FAANG could make billions of a random person's GPL'd code and they'd never know.
- thatfunkymunki 5y ago
  Spoiler alert: vast majority of FAANG systems run on Linux, making billions for them.
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    Don't they also provide a lot of developer time through patches?
    - notsureaboutpg 5y ago
      They sure do, but having worked at such a place, the companies are using way more free labor in open source software than they are giving back. In a way, everyone is doing that as well. I certainly use more free software than I contribute free software / dev time to free software
- david_allison 5y ago
  This is a common occurrence. Modifications don't need to be shared back to the community if the software is used internally or behind a webserver.
- kobalsky 5y ago
  amazon and google both created managed version of popular open source software like grafana and airflow and they are priced at a premium.
  - mrintegrity 5y ago
    grafana is agplv3 but grafana the company has a deal with amazon to grant them a special licence
- noir_lord 5y ago
  AWS did this with a bunch of stuff including Elastic. https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-AWS https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-AWS
RNCTX 5y ago
The AGPL was created so that for-profit, not-free software can get free QA and put an open-source blurb on their landing page, be honest.

tomjen3 5y ago

Yes. You only need to share your code (or send it if asked) to people who get your modified code. If nobody gets it, then nobody can ask you for it.

throwaway2037 5y ago

Yes, it is valid. Consider for example: If you are an embedded hardware company. You modify GCC to support a new target / platform. Then, you can compile C code and create binaries for your embedded hardware. As long as GCC is not distributed, this is a perfectly valid use case for GPL'd software. Less abstract: Facebook famously has massive internal patches for MySQL, which is GPL'd. And of course, Google has massive internal patches for Linux kernel, which is also GPL'd.