Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org) [LWN.net]

Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org)

Posted Oct 23, 2006 3:11 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
In reply to: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org) by bronson
Parent article: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org)

> Kernel devs only want tit for tat: if you write your code based on
> my code, you must make your changes available to me too. The GPLv2
> is an excellent license to ensure this.

The GPLv2 does not ensure this. Do the GCC developers have access
to any version of the Stanford Checker?

The GPLv2 was written to ensure the freedom of *users* of GPL-licenced
software. Not to enforce or encourage reciprocal gifts from and to
developers of the software.

The GPLv3 also attempts to ensure the freedom of *users*.

(Log in to post comments)

Linus' claim that GPLv2 guarantees quid pro quo for developers is false

Posted Oct 23, 2006 23:56 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> Ah yes, the old run-it-on-a-server hole. Does the GPLv3 change this?

No. The Affero clause (one of the optional additional restrictions) can
address it to some extent.

> It has nothing to do with DRM, of course.

Sorry, I should have edited the subject line. I was addressing the claim
above (expressed also by Linus Torvalds on Groklaw) that people who
improve GPLv2 software are somehow obliged to contribute their
improvements "back", presumably meaning upstream. No such obligation
exists with any version of the GPL -- the obligation is to *users*, not
the original developers.

running GPLv3 code just on a server

Posted Oct 23, 2006 23:56 UTC (Mon) by sanjoy (subscriber, #5026) [Link]

Do the GCC developers have access to any version of the Stanford Checker?

Ah yes, the old run-it-on-a-server hole. Does the GPLv3 change this? It has nothing to do with DRM, of course.

Is the Stanford checker run as a web service to which you feed in your own code? Or do you submit your code to the company and they run their program on your code?

If it's the first case, then the GPLv3 has provisions for this case. The copyright holder can add restrictions from a limited set. One permissible restriction is the so-called Affero clause. From draft 2, section 7(b)(4):

...if a modified version of the material they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network session;

If it's the second case (you give them code, and they run the checker within the company, i.e. privately), then the GPLv3 doesn't say anything about it (except in the patent-retaliation clauses).