4 ms·

And, IANAL, but I remember reading the the GPL doesn't cover SAAS either because you're not distributing a program.

empyrical 11y ago
I could be wrong, but I think if you communicate with the GPL application using the command line under the hood, the application doesn't fall under the GPL either; which I think is how the closed source applications that provide a Git frontend work
- jholman 11y ago
  I hate it when people repeat gossip without actually knowing what they're talking about, but here I go doing that very thing! My ignorant understanding of this issue is that it has not been tested in court, and there are differing opinions about whether or not the strategy you describe is open to legal action. In the GPL v2.0, there's some language in section 2 that suggests that if you ship your closed-source app with the open-source app, then you're licensing both under the GPL. GPL2 isn't super clear on the issue. In GPL 3.0, there's a lot of language in section 1 about "Corresponding Source" which I believe was believed by the authors to specifically close the loophole you describe. So, if I were trying to obey the letter of the law religiously, I wouldn't do what you describe. And if I was trying to obey the _spirit_ of the law, I'd do what a previous employer of mine did: personally contact the authors of the GPL code in question and verbally ask for permission.
  - carussell 11y ago
    > In the GPL v2.0, there's some language in section 2 that suggests that if you ship your closed-source app with the open-source app, then you're licensing both under the GPL. GPL2 isn't super clear on the issue. That's unequivocally false. It's not even a matter of GPLv2 making vague suggestions or being unclear. It's explicit and says the exact opposite of what you've written. You can ship closed source apps and free software together. If that wasn't the case, then none of the Linux-based consumer devices that ship with proprietary userland would be able to exist.
    - jholman 11y ago
      You certainly can ship non-free software and free software together, in the general case. I was, of course, talking about the context of the parent comment, which was about (non-free) software that, as a fundamental part of its operation, use free software via a well-defined non-link-time interface. Such as, for example, a GUI text-search tool that, to do its fundamental work, shells out to gnu grep. My understanding is that the relevant part of the GPLv2 is (with emphasis mine): "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." I honestly agree it's pretty explicit, but disagree with you about what it says. IANAL, but I have heard the analysis I gave from two independent sources, one of whom is a lawyer specializing in IP law, and the other of whom used to work with the FSF on policy issues. As I say, my understanding (given to me by the aforementioned lawyer) is that this has not been tested in court.
- Nursie 11y ago
  If that goes to court you are likely to be spanked hard for circumvention. Further, at that point you know you're going against the wishes of the original developer and are acting with bad faith.
Tyr42 11y ago
That's why they introduced the Affero GLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License Which basically means, you can't use the code at all commercially; stay very far away from the code. It's not very well defined how to be compliant.
- task_queue 11y ago
  AGPL says no such thing. AGPL software running on the backend must be made available upon request to users who are served content by it.
- rmc 11y ago
  It is entirely possible to use AGPL code commerically. You just have to give a copy of the source code to your user. This is no different from RMS selling copies of Emacs and giving the customers the code afterwards.

I could be wrong, but I think if you communicate with the GPL application using the command line under the hood, the application doesn't fall under the GPL either; which I think is how the closed source applications that provide a Git frontend work

jholman 11y ago
I hate it when people repeat gossip without actually knowing what they're talking about, but here I go doing that very thing! My ignorant understanding of this issue is that it has not been tested in court, and there are differing opinions about whether or not the strategy you describe is open to legal action. In the GPL v2.0, there's some language in section 2 that suggests that if you ship your closed-source app with the open-source app, then you're licensing both under the GPL. GPL2 isn't super clear on the issue. In GPL 3.0, there's a lot of language in section 1 about "Corresponding Source" which I believe was believed by the authors to specifically close the loophole you describe. So, if I were trying to obey the letter of the law religiously, I wouldn't do what you describe. And if I was trying to obey the _spirit_ of the law, I'd do what a previous employer of mine did: personally contact the authors of the GPL code in question and verbally ask for permission.
- carussell 11y ago
  > In the GPL v2.0, there's some language in section 2 that suggests that if you ship your closed-source app with the open-source app, then you're licensing both under the GPL. GPL2 isn't super clear on the issue. That's unequivocally false. It's not even a matter of GPLv2 making vague suggestions or being unclear. It's explicit and says the exact opposite of what you've written. You can ship closed source apps and free software together. If that wasn't the case, then none of the Linux-based consumer devices that ship with proprietary userland would be able to exist.
  - jholman 11y ago
    You certainly can ship non-free software and free software together, in the general case. I was, of course, talking about the context of the parent comment, which was about (non-free) software that, as a fundamental part of its operation, use free software via a well-defined non-link-time interface. Such as, for example, a GUI text-search tool that, to do its fundamental work, shells out to gnu grep. My understanding is that the relevant part of the GPLv2 is (with emphasis mine): "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." I honestly agree it's pretty explicit, but disagree with you about what it says. IANAL, but I have heard the analysis I gave from two independent sources, one of whom is a lawyer specializing in IP law, and the other of whom used to work with the FSF on policy issues. As I say, my understanding (given to me by the aforementioned lawyer) is that this has not been tested in court.
Nursie 11y ago
If that goes to court you are likely to be spanked hard for circumvention. Further, at that point you know you're going against the wishes of the original developer and are acting with bad faith.

Tyr42 11y ago

That's why they introduced the Affero GLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License Which basically means, you can't use the code at all commercially; stay very far away from the code. It's not very well defined how to be compliant.

task_queue 11y ago
AGPL says no such thing. AGPL software running on the backend must be made available upon request to users who are served content by it.
rmc 11y ago
It is entirely possible to use AGPL code commerically. You just have to give a copy of the source code to your user. This is no different from RMS selling copies of Emacs and giving the customers the code afterwards.