Trusted testers wanted

[MattieShoes]

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

It lists "distribution" and "making available to the public" separately, though convey apparently covers either.

You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

Not only can he distribute it to testers with his modifications, testers are not allowed to distribute his modifications without his permission.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

Not only can he distribute it to testers with his modifications, testers are not allowed to distribute his modifications without his permission.

The question is if the testers that he are asking for are what is meant here by "provide you with facilities for running those work" or "exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control". I think not. See:


Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... llowModNDA


The clauses you quoted to me sound like they mean software meant for batch executing on hardware-for-hire etc. The testers are very much making independent decisions when, how and what to run.

Not only that, even if my reading there is incorrect, it's STILL a GPL violation:

In Volkers case he said:

Of course you recieve all the rights the GPL V3 (the original Glaurung license) gives you. This includes the right to modify it and give copies away

Which is contrary to the sentence you posted that FORBIDS this right (to give copies away):

on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

So clearly Volker is not providing it on those terms.

[Marc Lacrosse]

Not only can he distribute it to testers with his modifications, testers are not allowed to distribute his modifications without his permission.

It seems we do not read things the same way :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... llowModNDA :

Code: Select all

" Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?

    No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis. "

End of the discussion for what regards myself.

[MattieShoes]

Well, I'm convinced. I'll never, ever, use GPL on anything I write. I'll never incorporate any GPL'ed code into my own. You've set up so many roadblocks to sharing, all in the name of encouraging it... It's asinine. If I were a corporation, I believe I'd avoid it too. In the long run, you people make it cheaper to BUY licenses.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

You shouldn't be surprised that a license with the sole design intention of keeping code free, makes it hard to make code non-free.

The GPL prevents sharing if this makes the code in any way non-free.

If that's not what you want, the BSD license is indeed a much better option.

[bob]

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

It lists "distribution" and "making available to the public" separately, though convey apparently covers either.

You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

Not only can he distribute it to testers with his modifications, testers are not allowed to distribute his modifications without his permission.

I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. If you take a piece of source code, and modify it, _you_ do not own the copyright on that code. And, in fact, your modifications to that code fall under the GPL as well. Which means that if you send this code to someone else, they also must comply with the GPL. And they can give that source code to anyone. I believe what you are considering is the case where I write a front end to a GPL program, and distribute both my front-end and the GPL program together. My front-end is not necessarily GPL unless I choose to make it so. And I own the copyright to that code. But the GPL code I include remains GPL unless the original author decides to make newer versions that do not fall under the GPL.

If you want to modify a GPL program and keep the modifications private, you can do so, by simply not distributing the updated version. But once you do, it too is necessarily under the GPL.

[bob]

You shouldn't be surprised that a license with the sole design intention of keeping code free, makes it hard to make code non-free.

The GPL prevents sharing if this makes the code in any way non-free.

If that's not what you want, the BSD license is indeed a much better option.

That _is_ the point. The GPL intentionally sets up hurdles that are impossible to jump over, if the sole goal is to take a GPL program, modify it, and then treat the result as non-GPL code.

[MattieShoes]

I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. If you take a piece of source code, and modify it, _you_ do not own the copyright on that code. And, in fact, your modifications to that code fall under the GPL as well. Which means that if you send this code to someone else, they also must comply with the GPL. And they can give that source code to anyone.

You don't own the copyright on the unmodified code but you do own the copyright on the code you wrote. Yes? And your modifications fall under the GPL *if* you release it to the public, yes? It states specifically that you can do whatever the hell you please if you aren't releasing it to the public.

You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright.

Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. ...

It seems straightforward. He's not releasing it, he's conveying it to testers who are providing facilities for testing, which means the pages of rules following do not apply. It's an extension of the "you can do whatever the hell you want if it's private" rule specifically to allow you to have people other than yourself make modifications for you or test it for you.

And any tester that sends the modified source to somebody else would be infringing on HIS rights, since his source is *still private*. His modifications don't even have to be GPL since it's not released to the public.

From the FAQ:

Who has the power to enforce the GPL?

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL.

Hasn't the copyright holder already given his blessing?

[bob]

I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. If you take a piece of source code, and modify it, _you_ do not own the copyright on that code. And, in fact, your modifications to that code fall under the GPL as well. Which means that if you send this code to someone else, they also must comply with the GPL. And they can give that source code to anyone.

You don't own the copyright on the unmodified code but you do own the copyright on the code you wrote. Yes? And your modifications fall under the GPL *if* you release it to the public, yes? It states specifically that you can do whatever the hell you please if you aren't releasing it to the public.

That's a legal question that is beyond my pay grade. I am not sure I can take someone else's book, modify it, and then claim the copyright on what i added, which is sandwiched in with what they wrote.

But yes, you are free to do whatever you want with a GPL program, if you keep it private and do not distribute it in any form whatsoever. But once you distribute it, then you have to abide by the GPL completely for any source that was GPL and which you modified. It remains GPL source.

You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright.

Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. ...

It seems straightforward. He's not releasing it, he's conveying it to testers who are providing facilities for testing, which means the pages of rules following do not apply. It's an extension of the "you can do whatever the hell you want if it's private" rule specifically to allow you to have people other than yourself make modifications for you or test it for you.

I disagree with that interpretation. You can not take a GPL program, modify it, then send it to me and request that I keep it secret, but use it in a public way so that others see the process, but not the code. NDA and GPL are completely incompatible.

And any tester that sends the modified source to somebody else would be infringing on HIS rights, since his source is *still private*. His modifications don't even have to be GPL since it's not released to the public.

You don't have to release something to the general public to have to comply with the GPL. If you send it to anyone, that "anyone" has to comply with the GPL and can therefore send the GPL software to anyone else he chooses. You can send a GPL program to a group of friends. But you can't then require that those friends not further distribute the software, because the GPL explicitly does not allow that restriction.

From the FAQ:

Who has the power to enforce the GPL?

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL.

Hasn't the copyright holder already given his blessing?

Actually the FSF is usually the one that instigates lawsuits regarding GPL, but I would think the original author could do so if he wants.

[bob]

I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. If you take a piece of source code, and modify it, _you_ do not own the copyright on that code. And, in fact, your modifications to that code fall under the GPL as well. Which means that if you send this code to someone else, they also must comply with the GPL. And they can give that source code to anyone.

You don't own the copyright on the unmodified code but you do own the copyright on the code you wrote. Yes? And your modifications fall under the GPL *if* you release it to the public, yes? It states specifically that you can do whatever the hell you please if you aren't releasing it to the public.

That's a legal question that is beyond my pay grade. I am not sure I can take someone else's book, modify it, and then claim the copyright on what i added, which is sandwiched in with what they wrote.

But yes, you are free to do whatever you want with a GPL program, if you keep it private and do not distribute it in any form whatsoever. But once you distribute it, then you have to abide by the GPL completely for any source that was GPL and which you modified. It remains GPL source.

You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright.

Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. ...

It seems straightforward. He's not releasing it, he's conveying it to testers who are providing facilities for testing, which means the pages of rules following do not apply. It's an extension of the "you can do whatever the hell you want if it's private" rule specifically to allow you to have people other than yourself make modifications for you or test it for you.

I disagree with that interpretation. You can not take a GPL program, modify it, then send it to me and request that I keep it secret, but use it in a public way so that others see the process, but not the code. NDA and GPL are completely incompatible.

And any tester that sends the modified source to somebody else would be infringing on HIS rights, since his source is *still private*. His modifications don't even have to be GPL since it's not released to the public.

You don't have to release something to the general public to have to comply with the GPL. If you send it to anyone, that "anyone" has to comply with the GPL and can therefore send the GPL software to anyone else he chooses. You can send a GPL program to a group of friends. But you can't then require that those friends not further distribute the software, because the GPL explicitly does not allow that restriction.

From the FAQ:

Who has the power to enforce the GPL?

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL.

Hasn't the copyright holder already given his blessing?

Actually the FSF is usually the one that instigates lawsuits regarding GPL, but I would think the original author could do so if he wants.