The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 29, 2007 14:12 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)
Parent article: The third GPLv3 draft

Am I right in thinking that it's OK to *rent* someone a box containing GPL software without offering them its source? The ownership of the box or of the GPL-based software do not change, so there is no distribution taking place.

If this is the case, why is so much discussion even taking place? Let a Tivo-like company market its services. People who sign up rent a box which performs it. The rental contract costs roughly what the box would cost to buy (if it could be bought) in the first year, and a nominal sum in subsequent years. Or any other pricing scheme they choose.

If I *rent* a car I don't expect to be given the numeric code that allows me to remove the radio from that car and install it into a different one. It's not my car and it's not my radio, I've only purchased a time-limited right to use them (together). If I *buy* the car and the radio, then I do expect to be permitted to separate the radio from the car, and use either in any way that I can imagine.

From the economics perspective, a rental business will thrive if it adds sufficient extra value compared to anything that's available on outright sale. It'll fail if it doesn't. Shouldn't the GPL just say that locked-down non-replaceable GPL software is not allowed in any item that is sold outright, but is permitted (more accurately, cannot be forbidden) in a device that is merely rented?

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 29, 2007 15:17 UTC (Thu) by notamisfit (guest, #40886) [Link] (6 responses)

From the article:

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.

So I'm guessing this covers sales, rentals, leases, etc of User Products.

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 29, 2007 17:28 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] (2 responses)

To me, right of posession implies the right to re-paint, the right to cut bits off or weld bits on, the right to completely destroy. Surely when you rent something, the right of posession is not transferred to the recipient even temporarily, only a limited right of use. The GPL draft says "posession *and* use", so does this not exclude renting? I'm not a lawyer, anyone with more of a legal background care to comment?

I would be opposed to the GPL trying to obstruct rental agreements. It's not hard to imagine a piece of (specialized, delicate, expensive, safety-critical?) hardware that could be permanently damaged or degraded as a consequence of running modified control code. Someone who rents out equipment should no more have to facilitate the alteration of code embedded in it, than facilitate modification of the hardware by providing the (physical) key to a locked case. You might even argue that he's under a duty of care to his next customer to try to prevent such uncontrolled usage from taking place.

Conversely, the GPL very much should, if possible, insist that all keys and rights are handed over if and when the hardware is sold.

To me there seems to be a very clear and natural divide here. If you sell, you must not attempt to retain rights over GPL'ed code that you don't own in the first place. If you rent, the whole system remains yours, and you should not be obliged to hand over anything to the renter that you don't want to.

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 29, 2007 18:44 UTC (Thu) by notamisfit (guest, #40886) [Link]

And if Tivo decides they're going to lease their boxes for an indeterminate time vice selling them?

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 30, 2007 1:33 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

"Possession" in law does not mean ownership - it means having the physical object under your control. [It's actually more complicated than that - there's "actual possession" (having physical control of the object) and having the power and intention to later take possession of the object is "constructive possession". So constructive is more like ownership. AThe license doesn't distinguish, at least in that clause, but actual possession presumably does not imply conveying.]

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 30, 2007 1:26 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

Read it more carefully: "and the conveying occurs". If it's a rental, there is no conveying, so the license doesn't apply - there's no distribution for it to control. [IANAL]

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 30, 2007 19:15 UTC (Fri) by sanjoy (guest, #5026) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't think that interpretation is correct. Even if it's a rental, a conveying has occured (the renter has received a copy of the executable). So the question is whether the "fixed-term" condition also applies.

The third GPLv3 draft

Posted Mar 31, 2007 2:56 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

No, the renter has received a copy, but that copy has not been propagated or conveyed, but simply lent. Propagating is defined in the license as doing something that requires the copyright owner's permission, which renting does not. Conveying is a subset of propagating where the recipient is able to make and distribute copies.

The word "able" is slippery of course. I read it as "is legally allowed to" rather than "is mechanically able to" because that's consistent with the definition of propagation depending on the copyright owner's permission.

Renting a device that has software in it does not require the copyright owner's permission [unless, per the Software Rental Act, the software in the device can be copied as part of the device's normal operation].