Google ? [LWN.net]

Google ?

Posted May 23, 2007 11:07 UTC (Wed) by hpp (guest, #4756) [Link]

GoogleFS is developed and used only within Google, but do we have any evidence that it includes GPL'ed components? The same questions applies to other pieces of the Google world (map/reduce, monitoring code, search code) - it may run on Linux but I am not aware of it including GPL'ed components.

As such, there shoud be no pressure on Google to release any of this...

Google, yes

Posted May 23, 2007 14:41 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

As such, there shoud be no pressure on Google to release any of this...

Why not? At least the same pressure as on all other proprietary vendors that "do not get it". Maybe even more: other companies are openly "evil" and do not care about doing things right. Google does care, or at least that is the public line.

Google, yes

Posted May 23, 2007 17:51 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]

I don't think it is the vendors who don't get it in this case. Nobody owes me a thing. I'm grateful when given a gift but I do not mistake it for anything else other than a gift.

This overly developed sense of entitlement by certain people in the free software community is just annoying and very counter productive.

Free software has gained the ground it has because it is a superior model. Odds are reasonably good it will continue to gain ground for the same reason.

Just to be clear, I'm not painting Moglen with this brush. He may in fact have a legitimate point in this case. I don't know enough to say at this juncture.

Following a superior model

Posted May 23, 2007 19:46 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Sure, and it is out of the pure kindness of our hearts that we want Google to release their own software as free software. Mind you, we want Google to succeed, and the easiest way to success for such a good friend of free software is surely to free their own software. Since it is such a superior model, it is odd that they themselves have not seen the light, but whatever. A slight prodding is probably all they need to do it, lest something bad (following an inferior model) befalls them.

Now seriously. You are right in most things, but even Linus thinks that "GPLv2 is about tit-for-tat", and he is not suspect of ideological purity. Now let's zoom out a bit. In a general sense you could say that Google is what it is because of free software, so asking them to give some of their own back would not be so outrageous. All xoddam and others are saying is that freeing their own software would be what separates "good" citizens from "outstanding" citizens.

Meanwhile Moglen only speaks about modifications to software which is already free. Pure tit-for-tat, probably even Linus would be with him in that.

Following a superior model

Posted May 23, 2007 22:41 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (guest, #31386) [Link]

> asking them to give some of their own back would not be so outrageous.

Following the same logic, you could ask writers who use open source for their work to release their books under a free license.

Distributing local modifications to free software used is of course something different and a very good thing, but still not something that should be forced. Just imagine the pain when using a LGPL library with your own buggy program that arbitrarily scribbles memory!

Following a superior model

Posted May 31, 2007 12:06 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"Following the same logic, you could ask writers who use open source for their work to release their books under a free license."

OK. Here you go:

http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=zotzbro
http://pc.celtx.com/profile/zotz
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%28creator%3A%22d...

If we can figure out a way for people to make a decent living using Free Licenses, why not seek to promote such?

all the best,

drew

Superior model ? Hardly...

Posted May 23, 2007 23:24 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I often see this screams about "the superior model" and how everyone should only ever write free software. While free software clearly wins when moral and ethic is included when we are talking about practical viewpoint everything is not so easy. I think Craig A. James said it best: There is a natural "lifecycle" to software technology, which includes both commercial periods and FOSS periods..

If you'll think about successful FOSS projects - they are either converted former proprietary projects (Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc) or reimplementation of proprietary projects (Linux, GCC, MySQL, etc). In rare cases FOSS dominates the niche from the start to finish (web-servers: from NCSA httpd to Apache), but it only happens when initial design is simple enough and can be done without massive efffort. Otherwise proprietary leads for a while but eventually FOSS overcomes it - and looks like that is natural lifecycle of software... I suspect most of Google's software is at the beginning of this cycle. But some are already at the middle and may be even closer to the end (whoever uses Picasa for Linux ? what for ?).

Superior model ? Hardly...

Posted May 24, 2007 7:20 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]

The vast majority of popular proprietary software is also reimplementation of other proprietary products; I think it's just a matter of luck depending on who is in the right place at the right time. But indeed, free software seems to be winning in the long run (or at least that's what I would like to think).

Superior model ? Hardly...

Posted May 24, 2007 8:00 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Some proprietary products are also reimplementations of free products; like IIS from Apache or the Windows NT networking layer (some say directly ripped off BSD). Or version control software from CVS. Or even all Unices from the original AT&T Unix, which followed a model closer in many respects to free software than to proprietary products (patches and distributions) and which resulted in the free BSD.

Superior model ? Hardly...

Posted May 24, 2007 17:34 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]

Proprietary software does seem to be better are opening up markets, though -- look at, oh, say, video editing software right now. The commercial development houses looked around at the market and could see that consumer video was coming down the pike and going to be a big thing, so they invested the capital up-front to build video editing suites, and it's partly the existence of cheap and usable editing suites that's making it possible for ordinary people to start playing with video and grow the market.

Traditional FOSS development is not at all forward-looking (and it's even a point of pride, for good technical reasons, YAGNI and all that). It wasn't until lots of people had access to hardware and were playing around with it that the itch grew to create free editing software, and so now the free stuff is still way behind the proprietary stuff. It's not clear that the free stuff would exist at all without the proprietary stuff having enabled hardware sales and development.

No reason that commercial investment on speculative markets has equate to proprietary software, though -- they could just as well invest capital up-front in developing a GPLed hunk of software, make money on support, and then when the market picked up ride the influx up new developers right past their competitors. Until that happens, though, this is a particular niche situation where FOSS development has fewer than usual competitive advantages over proprietary stuff.

Superior model ? Hardly...

Posted May 24, 2007 20:12 UTC (Thu) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]

> If you'll think about successful FOSS projects - they are either
converted former proprietary projects (Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc) or
reimplementation of proprietary projects (Linux, GCC, MySQL, etc). In rare
cases FOSS dominates the niche from the start to finish (web-servers: from
NCSA httpd to Apache), but it only happens when initial design is simple
enough and can be done without massive effort.

These are the new FOSS projects. There are a couple of good examples of
successful projects 10 years earlier (mid 80's); TeX typesetting system
and the X Window System. I wouldn't call neither simple, they were quite
massive by the standards of the time when they were created. At that time
there were no proprietary alternatives to them I think (e.g. TeX used
bezier curve strokes to describe its fonts in 1984). Both were created in
the university environment.

I'm personally still using X daily and TeX weekly, and both are also
used commercially. The TeX project had last known bug almost 20 years
ago (it hasn't change much since then). What proprietary software can
claim the same track record?

Google ?

Posted Jun 8, 2007 10:58 UTC (Fri) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

>> As such, there shoud be no pressure on Google to release any of this...

The pressure is not on Google to release something it won't have to under an Affero type license. The pressure is on every company (with special focus on one of the wealthiest businesses in the world) to make sure that if they are not using GPL, that they continue not to if they want to keep things secret. Otherwise, they are legal today, but things may change so (eg) Google should plan now. They would then need to open up or else reimplement the GPL components (that become GPL3,4,etc) to keep their secrets.

It's called "advanced notice -- just in case."

Google ?

Posted Jun 8, 2007 11:05 UTC (Fri) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

I forgot to mention, I do think Google has contributed. But it does seem it is disproportionate what Google has gotten from its use vs. what it has given back. In such a case, those contributing might want to adjust their future license to make such a disparity less likely.

Google ?

Posted May 23, 2007 13:56 UTC (Wed) by dank (guest, #1865) [Link]

I think the reason people are worrying that Google might not
be a great free software community citizen is that it's not
easy for outsiders to tell how much of Google's infrastructure
involves GPL'd code, and furthermore how many enhancements Google
is making to GPL'd code but is not contributing back to the public.
Maybe it would help for Google to invite an outside observer (Eben?)
to have a look and report back to the community.

Chris DiBona said in http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2132480,00.asp
"I can look at any end binary in the company and I can tell you what open-source software is expressed within thatbecause of the way that we manage our code base."
That might be a starting point for the outside observer: Chris could
give him or her a tour through the Google infrastructure and show
just how much or little GPL code is linked in.

It's worth noting that Google ships some of their infrastructure
as part of their Search Appliance, which means that even without
the service provider clause in the new GPL, they are forced to
be very careful about linking in GPL'd software.

Google ?

Posted May 23, 2007 14:33 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link]

I think it's a very dangerous path to go down to suggest that those users of GPL software who provide little or no new code as "suspect" and deserving of a code audit.

Smacks too much of Microsoft and BSA intimidation tactics.

Google ?

Posted May 23, 2007 16:09 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

The GPL says that any recipient of GPL code is absolutely entitled to do with it what they want on their own machines, including changing it until its own mother wouldn't recognise it and not sharing the result, as long as they do not distribute compiled binaries of the code in question to others. If the folks at Google want to grab GPL code off the net and rewrite, enhance, ..., it for their own use, then more power to them. This is how the GPL works, and how it is intended to work.

When did that change?

Google ?

Posted May 23, 2007 17:03 UTC (Wed) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

Seconded. It's always been held that if someone wants to combine their proprietary code with GPL'd code in-house, without distributing it to anyone else, this is just fine. It's their codebase, and they can do what they like with it.. It's only when they go to distribute other people's code that they need to worry about the license.
The definition of 'distribute' has gotten mightily strained lately, between this and the nonsense with Microsoft's coupons.

Google ?

Posted May 23, 2007 18:43 UTC (Wed) by lorien420 (guest, #44036) [Link]

"When did that change?"

It hasn't changed, but it was a considered change for the GPLv3 that provided web services and the like should count as a form of distribution.

Both sides of this debate have valid points, and it seems to revolve around what we mean by "in-house." I would define "in-house" as meaning software that only affects your company. This could include custom modifications for your processes, internal bug tracking, etc.

Where some minds differ is when you develop "in-house" software that is marketed and sold as a public web service. While the software lives exclusively in-house, you are allowing outsiders to utilize it. Many feel that it violates the spirit of free software to not provide these people with a stab at the changed sources to set it up on their computer and do what they want to with it.

Posted May 23, 2007 19:38 UTC (Wed) by tseaver (subscriber, #1544) [Link]

The wish of some (e.g., in the "Affero" license) to extend that definition
to include situations not covered by copyright law are likely to end
up unenforceable, at best.

Posted May 23, 2007 23:32 UTC (Wed) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link]

Copyright law also covers "public performance" and a case can be made that running software on a publicly available computer (for instance a webserver) constitutes public performance of the program.
IANAL and I know that the details of the law vary by country... Affero might be stretching the GPL a bit, certainly not recommended for every application, but it is founded on the letter of the law.

Posted May 23, 2007 23:56 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

That's true, but copyright law (in some countries) covers things other
than distribution; for instance the right to prepare modified works or (as
a previous reply mentions) to perform the work to a public audience. The
point is that it is illegal (in those jurisdictions) to make "in house"
modifications except as allowed by the copyright licence (and by "fair
use", if such a right also exists in that country).

The GPL v2 gives blanket permission to modify the code as the licensee
pleases. The Affero Public Licence withholds that permission in specific
circumstances, namely it prohibits the removal of a prominent "download
the version of the code which provides this service" button from a public
web service.

The new notion of "propagation" in the most recent draft of the GPL v3
allows the extension of copyleft protection into areas not normally
considered by copyright law, by selectively withholding permission to do
things which *are* the provenance of copyright. This applies, in
particular, to the GPLv3's patent and anti-DRM provisions, and to the
no-more-MS-Novell-deals clause.

It might apply equally effectively if "propagation" were defined also to
include providing a service to the public based on the covered work. The
current GPL v3 draft does not do this; a later version of the Affero
licence probably will.

If copyright gives holders the right to demand payment per copy or for a
licence to prepare derivative works, it certainly gives them the right to
impose conditions on the way in which those actions are permitted.

Nevertheless I don't think applying those terms to the GNU body of code
would be sufficient to force a company the size of Google to publish its
in-house code. I am certain they are very well aware of what code they
own and what they have licensed from elsewhere, and of the terms of each
and every license.

Such a move might be so counterproductive as to move Google from the "free
software is a good thing and I'm pleased to contribute even if not all my
products are free software" camp into the "FSF are communists who want me
to give away my golden goose" camp.

Posted May 31, 2007 12:35 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

I don't see why people seem to thing this. Can you explain the thinking for me?

I can deny the right to copy my work even in house unless you agree to the conditions set in the license. Yes? No?

all the best,

drew

Google ?

Posted May 24, 2007 2:30 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> It hasn't changed, but it was a considered change for the GPLv3 that provided web services and the like should count as a form of distribution.

By that standard, then if I provide someone with a shell account on my machine, then I am distributing every program they can access to them; even if I only provide execute access to the programs, I would still have to provide them with a means of downloading all source code. I can't see any sensible way of defining "distribution" that would include web services but exclude this; one might draw a distinction between public distribution and limited distribution, but that would make the desirable qualities of the GPL easily circumventable.

So such a restriction would have to be defined as a restriction on use, rather than on redistribution... and then you'd have to define "use" in a way that includes "present to the world as a web app" for Perl scripts, but excludes "compile a program" for gcc, or "produce a Postscript file from this text file" for groff - or even "run this script" for Perl itself - and you'd have to be absolutely sure your definition was both precise and enforceable.

Er, eek?

Google ?

Posted May 31, 2007 12:39 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"By that standard, then if I provide someone with a shell account on my machine"

Could be. Anyone agree? Disagree?

What about putting together a system, hardware and modified software, and renting it out.

all the best,

drew

Google ?

Posted May 24, 2007 8:11 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

It didn't change.

But the *spirit* of the GPL is that every single user of a piece of software should have the freedom to improve, change, redistribute, adjust that piece of software, if he/she so chooses.

This breaks down with web-services.

If you took a GPL-program and adopted it so that it could run as a web-service, you could then (currently) sell access to this web-service per-seat, and the users would be unable to improve, change, redistribute or adjust the program they are using.

Which is contrary to the spirit of the GPL, but perfectly legal according to the *letter* of GPLv2.

In effect, if you use GPL-software only for a web-service, you're allowed to treat it like BSD.

Google ?

Posted May 24, 2007 9:17 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Let's stipulate for a moment that you are right about the »spirit« of the GPL, as applied to web services.

The question here is how far down the stack this should extend. Presumably Google are running their own proprietary search engine code, on which the »spirit of the GPL« has no bearing, on top of a possibly-patched Linux kernel. Should they be morally obligated to publish their Linux kernel patches just because the machine in question is running (or even merely talking to another machine running) a web server that is accessible by the public?

Google ?

Posted May 24, 2007 22:57 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

No, something changed.

The GPL didn't change, and legal requirements didn't change, but the thing that Stallman sought to regulate with GPL has changed. Much of the computer use that formerly happened via distribution of software now happens by offering a service on the Internet. For example, this year I filed my income tax using a web service, whereas in the past I would pick up a CD at a store. And it looks like that trend will continue. Essentially, we're moving from the Microsoft era to the Google era.

So to continue the freedoms GPL hoped to give to computer users, there needs to be something new.

Google ?

Posted May 31, 2007 12:27 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"When did that change?"

When software as a service came into the game? (Spirit wise, not letter wise at this point perhaps.)

all the best,

drew

Google ?

Posted May 23, 2007 20:26 UTC (Wed) by BeS (subscriber, #43108) [Link]

>But it is also true that Google does a lot of in-house development, possibly based on GPL code (how would I know?) which is *used* by the public -- on Google's servers -- but not *released* to us.

I don't care that much about it, because even if Google would release this software probably most of us wouldn't be able to use the software because we don't have the servers Google has.

I care much more about software which Google develops and releases as non-Free Software (e.g. Google Earth). That's where Google looks really bad as a "Free Software citizen".

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 9:38 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link]

The recent arguments about the GPL3's Tivoization and patent clauses will seem like a picnic compared to what will happen when you say "if you use modified GPL'd software to produce a report for someone, then you *must* publish those modifications."

Thankfully the Afferro licence is a separate licence, and so reduced to niche status.

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 17:08 UTC (Wed) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

Hasn't it always been held that the output of a program generally can't be considered a 'derived work' unless it somehow contains some portion of the original work? If it's not a derived work, then how can the license of the original work hold any relevance to the output?

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 17:26 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Nobody says that the output is a derived work. But since you are giving a license to your copyrighted work, and distribution is essentially forbidden in copyright law, you can limit distribution to whatever conditions you want. That is how the Affero Public License can do its job. Quoting from it:

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

So, can you request in a license that distribution be performed only by specialists in Sanskrit Literature while they dance the Conga? Essentially, yes (although that would probably remove it from all free software or open source definitions). Can you request that programs run in private machines but accessed by people outside your organization be distributed only with source code? By all means. Whether you should do it is a different question.

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 17:47 UTC (Wed) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

I have no arguments with you on distribution, I agree fully with what you've stated in reference to that. My issue is, if the program is run on a private machine accessible by people outside your organization.. Are you _distributing_ anything? To me, it looks like the only thing distributed is the output, not the program itself.
My question is not whether you should require source distribution in such a context..
My question is whether you _can_. Requesting is not the same as requiring, and I'm really curious as to where the law stands on this. Does 'copyright' come into play when making modifications that don't involve distribution? To me it seems it would not, making the license irrelevant if the software itself stays within the organization.

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 18:37 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link]

It's not a question of distribution. As soon as you modify a program you have created a derived work, which is prohibited by copyright without the owner's permission.

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 19:23 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Against your argument it could seem that modification without distribution is different from distribution, and does not apply here; that is why I can sing my own version of "My way" (my "my way", if you will) in the shower without violating any laws. Well, I don't know about US law, but here in Spain software follows a completely different set of rule than artistic works.

The GPL FAQ is very lax about distribution "within your organization"; you can distribute a program without restrictions within your corporation, non-profit organization, and so on. You will find that copyright law is not so lax; you cannot make "private" copies within your organization, and even the number of personal copies for backup is limited. It has even been argued (this time in the US) that "running" a program is "distribution", since you are making a "copy" in memory of the software. Few people associated with free software want to tread that rute, but it is quite clear that distributing within your organization without a license is a big no-no.

Engineers would be forced to distribute code + patches and modify the original locally, which would not be the most convenient arrangement one can conceive -- even if Google is sure to find a way to automate it complying with the license at the same time. Gentoo could probably use some of those tools... if they ever see the light of day. Sigh. Too circular even for my liking.

Fair use

Posted May 24, 2007 0:44 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

> I can sing my own version of "My way" (my "my way", if you will)
> in the shower without violating any laws.

I am *certain* that this is covered by "fair use" in any reasonable
jurisdiction -- even where fair use does not formally exist :-)

Your neighbours may complain about noise pollution, but that's
a separate matter!

Fair use

Posted May 24, 2007 6:23 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

I don't think we have this "fair use" in Spanish law, although I'm certainly not a lawyer. The law regulates private performances:

The communication will not be considered public when it is performed in a strictly domestic scope which is not integrated or connected to a network of any kind.

So if I had a webcam in my shower (even if it is strictly private) a guy might show up and require payment.

Your neighbours may complain about noise pollution, but that's a separate matter!

Hey, I do what I can! :D

Fair use

Posted Jun 1, 2007 8:52 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

> Your neighbours may complain about noise pollution, but that's
> a separate matter!

It's not. Public performances are controlled by copyright. If you intentionally give a public performance (i.e. not in your shower, unless you put the video on YouTube), you need the copyright holder's agreement.

Putting a program for everybody's use on a web server is probably the equivalent of "public performance". The law possibly doesn't say anything about "public performance" of programs (because literally, this would mean "read the source code out aloud" or something like that), so it's not a well-defined legal term. Therefore, the Affero license goes through the "modification" clause. After all, if you run an unmodified program, the source is available, anyway.

Google, why not

Posted May 25, 2007 13:40 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

"The GPL FAQ is very lax about distribution "within your organization"; you can distribute a program without restrictions within your corporation, non-profit organization, and so on."

Actually, I think this is inherent in the GPL. Since the corporation is providing copies only to itself, it only has obligations with respect to itself. That is, it has to provide itself the source, if asked, and grant itself any patent license it already holds. Both of those are, obviously empty implications.

I think the GPL FAQ you cite is probably wrong in its last paragraph (it says that providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution). I think a company that showed that it had rules requiring that such copies be treated as loans of the company's property and returned on completion of the contract, coupled with reasonable auditing to make sure that that happened, would be hard to attack in court under the terms of the license. Since ownership of the copies remained with the company, only the company would be entitled to the rights required under the GPL. [But, IANAL]

Google, why not

Posted May 25, 2007 14:38 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Actually, I think this is inherent in the GPL. Since the corporation is providing copies only to itself, it only has obligations with respect to itself. That is, it has to provide itself the source, if asked, and grant itself any patent license it already holds. Both of those are, obviously empty implications.

I don't think so. A corporation that distributes or modifies software has obligations not to downstream receivers but to the owner of the copyright. This owner might set whatever requirements it saw fit, as for example "distribute source code upon request to any users, local or remote, of the software". In the case of the GPL the owner sees fit to set requirements for modifications only to outside distribution, but this is only in the FAQ and not in the license itself. (I didn't know this, by the way.)

So your rights for "internal distribution" are not as clear-cut as those in the GPL itself. In fact, the FSF might change the FAQ tomorrow if they see it fit and restate this paragraph, which would open a lot of entities to being sued. Basically, anyone who modifies and distributes a GPL program. Funny, isn't it?

I think the GPL FAQ you cite is probably wrong in its last paragraph (it says that providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution).

Imagine that you have a corporate license for a Microsoft program, and you want to distribute it to off-site contractors. Would you think it is wrong for the license to state that you cannot do it? Hardly, even if the company has strict rules and auditing and whatnot. Copyright law doesn't entitle you to internal nor external distribution, so your only way to do it is the license, in this case the GPL and the FAQ. Now that I think about it, I wouldn't even rely on the FAQ, but I guess you might argue you have "acquired rights". IANAL either.

Google, why not

Posted May 25, 2007 16:13 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I hope I put this all in the context of the GPL, not general copyright law. Absent the license, copyright would clearly prohibit making internal copies.

In the terms of the GPL, however, I believe what I said was correct. The GPL establishes the grant of permissions and hte responsibilities associated with them and those seem to me to allow internal distribution because such distribution is already meeting the requirements of the license (and, thereby, your responsibilities to the copyright owner).

The FAQ has no legal force, so changing it would not in any way affect the terms of the license.

Again, note that I am only talking in the context of the current license terms. The GPL could be rewriten to limit internal distribution, since that is a right reserved to the copyright holder. I am simply saying that under the current terms, internal distribution does not need to be considered specially - it's just like any other distribution.

Google, why not

Posted May 25, 2007 15:09 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

On second thought, forget about my earlier post. You are right that from the current version of the GPL it follows that you can distribute a program internally, with or without modifications. A change in the FAQ would not mean anything.

The GPL itself would have to be changed a lot to close the "ASP loophole"; for example, distribution of modified copies would have to be coupled to distribution of source code to users. It would be a mess, and maybe it is why they haven't gone that way with GPLv3.

Google, why not

Posted May 31, 2007 12:47 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"Does 'copyright' come into play when making modifications that don't involve distribution?"

Isn't that all that is needed? Law wise...

all the best,

drew

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 11:41 UTC (Wed) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link]

As far as I know Google actually never released any significant program they wrote as Free Software. Google Earth, Picasa, SketchUp, Google Desktop, etc. It's all proprietary and most of time it only runs on that proprietary OS. Their appliances are probably full of proprietary software too.

Is google a good citizen? If you look at the software they are using themself, they are using the freedom to modify the software and contribute back a lot. But it doesn't seem they want to give that freedom to the users of their software. And IMHO that's a bad thing.

Google, why not

Posted May 23, 2007 17:15 UTC (Wed) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

For some of that, there's some legal constraints outside their control. For instance, Google Earth makes use of data they don't control, and their own contracts prohibit them from allowing access to that data without prevention to ensure the data doesn't escape.
For others, I can't say offhand, but if it's their software in entirety, they have a right to do with it as they like. They're a service company, and that's how they make their money. That they provide so many services at effectively no cost and try to assist with the community at so many other points is, in my opinion, to be commended.

Google, why not

Posted May 24, 2007 12:45 UTC (Thu) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> 1992, which was a different world: no internet

Um, I recall being rather heavily addicted to the Internet in college in 1992 (and earlier), so I can assure you it certainly existed then... ;-)

Google, why not

Posted May 24, 2007 19:30 UTC (Thu) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]

Yeah, it was about 92 when I got my first internet address, found usenet and got into my first flame war. We have come so far since then!

Google, why not

Posted May 24, 2007 20:28 UTC (Thu) by jeffw (guest, #45419) [Link]

True, perhaps, but the general case of "application service providers" or "software as a service" has always been around. Arguably, ignoring PCs, it is the most frequently occurring type of software use.

H&R Block started Compuserve in the 1960s to sell computer time on their big systems outside of tax season. The Multics project was started in the 1960s specifically to develop software to run a "computer utility". Tangentially, even Centrex vs PBXs.

Assuming that the "ASP Crisis" exists at all - it is a direct result of the license. Yes the legal situation has changed, and the GPL needs to be updated to reflect the reality in 2007, and the reality globally. But the ASP problem has been around for ever - RMS diddnt need to foresee it back in '92. - it was there. That he diddnt see it is an indication that he isnt quite as perfect as some would like you to believe.