Hello! Our small company is internally using GPL software which we have modified for highly advanced functionality in engineering applications. So far it is clear that the code isn't distributed to anyone outside the company, and this is why we protect the modified sources.
We have been asked by customers to provide that special functionality in a DIY fashion rather than offering it only through our engineering services (delivering the results, not the tools). Because we can't afford to reveal our code improvements, they suggested to make the functions available from a web interface at reasonable usage pricing. They argue that we wouldn't 'distribute' the program so that the GPL requirements won't hold. However, at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods we read 'A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources? The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources. It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. ...' How can we distinguish when the GPL'ed program is only 'used' by the server, or when it is publically being used on the server? If we follow this explanation strictly, for example every web service running MySQL (under it's non-commercial license) and allowing custom SQL requests would have to reveal all it's source code. On the contrary, if we take the term 'convey the program' literally, the GPL doesn't apply, because no code is conveyed at all, and we could even follow an approach like https://desktopondemand.com to make our whole installation available without distributing anything (but HTML). Both our customers and we would benefit if the outlined access to our tools through a web service doesn't violate the GPL. The minimal interface would consist of some input fields to define parameters and to deliver the graphics resulting from the processed input. Where can we find more information on how to interprete 'distributing software' (GPLv2) or 'conveying software' (GPLv3)? Kind regards, Philipp Schmidt _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
