In article <1643689.EqoUTYPton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You can use the code to build server apps -- and yet you don't have to
> > "share" the code, so long as you don't "distribute" the code.
> >
> > GPL was designed for the days of having to distribute executables --
> > but not for the current SOA environment.
>
> Yes, and the loophole was not closed, IIRC. One has to wonder what loophole/s
> GPLv4 will close.
It's hard to see how they could close this, without greatly reducing the
usefulness of GPL. The reason GPLv2 worked so well is that it purely
expanded on the rights granted under copyright law. That is, it took
areas where copyright law said "you can't do this unless the copyright
holder gives you permission", and gave that permission.
It did not require you to give up anything. There was nothing in there
of the form "to get those extra permissions we are granting, you have to
agree to NOT do X, where X is something that copyright law allows".
It is this that let GPL avoid all those legal issues of contract
formation that arise when you have, say, a typical EULA, which tries to
limit you. And this is what makes GPLv2 so airtight legally.
Unfortunately for those that dislike the so-called SOA loophole, running
a program as a service generally doesn't require any special permission
from the copyright holder. If you've got permission to run the program
(and the output of the program itself doesn't incorporate copyrighted
elements that you don't have permission to distribute), then that's all
you need.
Would the FSF be willing to turn the GPL into something that is
basically a EULA, in order to close the SOA hole? I doubt it.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
