3 ms·

You're right, that would be propagating, since it's making a copy. In fact, it's also conveyance. But you forgot to keep reading GPLv3. 2. Basic Permissions.

You're right, that would be propagating, since it's making a copy. In fact, it's also conveyance. But you forgot to keep reading GPLv3. 2. Basic Permissions. [...] You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. You might still argue about dropbox, since it's neither modifying nor running the works, but certainly using the work on EC2 falls under this provision.

dragonwriter 12y ago
On review, I think you may be correct with something that is solely an execution service like EC2 (depending on the exact terms in the ToS of that service, though I only see one minor potential problem area -- in terms of the GPL terms under discussion -- related to government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2); but a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  > government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2 Are you talking about search warrants? I think any interpretation that makes one liable for copyright infringement for the government forcibly making a copy is likely to be laughed out of court. > a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic There is an exceedingly easy workaround if it is a problem: Encrypt it. That way you do not "enable" them to make copies (in any sense a court would care about).

dragonwriter 12y ago

On review, I think you may be correct with something that is solely an execution service like EC2 (depending on the exact terms in the ToS of that service, though I only see one minor potential problem area -- in terms of the GPL terms under discussion -- related to government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2); but a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic.

nknighthb 12y ago
> government requests with the AWS terms that would apply to EC2 Are you talking about search warrants? I think any interpretation that makes one liable for copyright infringement for the government forcibly making a copy is likely to be laughed out of court. > a service of the general type of Drive/Dropbox is still problematic There is an exceedingly easy workaround if it is a problem: Encrypt it. That way you do not "enable" them to make copies (in any sense a court would care about).