Trusted testers wanted

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

He is conveying covered works to others who provide facilities for running those works.

No. He is conveying it so THEY can run it. They are not providing facilities for him to run it.

If you lend me your computer and I use it (for example) via Remote desktop (Windows) or ssh (Unix), then this is providing facilities for running the works. If I give you a copy and you run tests for me, you are the one running it.

[bob]

He is conveying covered works to others who provide facilities for running those works.

No. He is conveying it so THEY can run it. They are not providing facilities for him to run it.

If you lend me your computer and I use it (for example) via Remote desktop (Windows) or ssh (Unix), then this is providing facilities for running the works. If I give you a copy and you run tests for me, you are the one running it.

I think the GPL issue is the word "convey". If I give it to you to run, I convey it to you. If I let you log into my box to run it, that is not the case.

[bob]

No, but it does mean that if you release it at all, you have to release the modified GPL code to the public.

No!

The GPL doesn't even mention the word "release". It talks about "conveying" the program, while the FAQ uses the terms "convey" and "distribute". The GPL requires that you make the modified source code available to all those you distribute the program to. It does not require that the the source code is available to the public.

Tord

This is true, but very far from the initial point and I do not contest what you say here.
The initial point is not that anybody asked Volker to release his version to everybody.
He is perfectly allowed to choose those to whom he will send anything of his liking.
The initial point is that if he chooses to send his modified version of a GPL program to someone else then he is not allowed in any way to restrict further redistribution by these persons to anyone else, be it in unchanged or modified form.
Asking for a promise not to redistribute further is a major breach of the whole GPL license.

Marc

If I say "I will tell you this, if you can keep it confidential" I am not breaking any freedom of speech law. You are free to broadcast the secret any time you want. As Tord said, "you won't violate any contract, you will behave like an asshole". This is the same. People are confusing here a "gentlemen agreement" with a "binding contract". You cannot force anybody or put pressure to anybody not to distribute the program you passed undel GPL. That is not what the original poster intended.

Miguel

I believe this is what he wanted to do:
============================================================
I know this software was released under the GPL, which is a part of the code that I modified. however, I want to send you a copy of the program, but have you ignore the GPL the original was released under, and not make a copy available to anyone else.
============================================================

While the intent was most likely harmless, he is effectively trying to circumvent specific GPL requirements. Even if the GPL were worded so that this is legal, it is still against the spirit of the GPL. The GPL concept is about openness and sharing, not secrecy and restrictions.

[michiguel]

No, but it does mean that if you release it at all, you have to release the modified GPL code to the public.

No!

The GPL doesn't even mention the word "release". It talks about "conveying" the program, while the FAQ uses the terms "convey" and "distribute". The GPL requires that you make the modified source code available to all those you distribute the program to. It does not require that the the source code is available to the public.

Tord

This is true, but very far from the initial point and I do not contest what you say here.
The initial point is not that anybody asked Volker to release his version to everybody.
He is perfectly allowed to choose those to whom he will send anything of his liking.
The initial point is that if he chooses to send his modified version of a GPL program to someone else then he is not allowed in any way to restrict further redistribution by these persons to anyone else, be it in unchanged or modified form.
Asking for a promise not to redistribute further is a major breach of the whole GPL license.

Marc

If I say "I will tell you this, if you can keep it confidential" I am not breaking any freedom of speech law. You are free to broadcast the secret any time you want. As Tord said, "you won't violate any contract, you will behave like an asshole". This is the same. People are confusing here a "gentlemen agreement" with a "binding contract". You cannot force anybody or put pressure to anybody not to distribute the program you passed undel GPL. That is not what the original poster intended.

Miguel

I believe this is what he wanted to do:
============================================================
I know this software was released under the GPL, which is a part of the code that I modified. however, I want to send you a copy of the program, but have you ignore the GPL the original was released under, and not make a copy available to anyone else.
============================================================

While the intent was most likely harmless, he is effectively trying to circumvent specific GPL requirements. Even if the GPL were worded so that this is legal, it is still against the spirit of the GPL. The GPL concept is about openness and sharing, not secrecy and restrictions.

I agree it looks bad, but he has no way to enforce it...

A better way to write it, according to further explanations, would have been: "I will distribute this to testers who have no desire to redistribute it but they wish to test it". Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

Miguel

[henkf]

I have not looked at stockfish and don't intend to.

You probably should: It already seems to be far stronger than Glaurung, and unlike Glaurung, Stockfish is likely to keep getting updated and improved in the future.

I simply want to see the GPL followed for programs released under the GPL.

As do I, of course. But in this case, everything is OK. The GPL does not require that you release your program to the public, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Tord

No, but it does mean that if you release it at all, you have to release the modified GPL code to the public.

True, but at the same time you seem to have a very liberal concept of 'releasing'. Volker is trying to form a team and started a application procedure to accomplish this. After accepting a member in his team he will send them the executable and sources for team use. I reckon this is how also big companies operate. I know your program is not GPL, but if it was, following your logic, since you are distributing your development program to all the nodes of your university cluster, which i guess is not your private property, you would have to release it there under a different licence, otherwise you would be obliged to release it to all.

I don't have a "liberal" interpretation of "release" I have a very specific interpretation. The modification has already been done. As per his original post. He now wants to _distribute_ this code to "trusted testers" (his terms). I don't see how one could interpret this any differently than I do. I can hardly develop a commercial product, sell the code and then call the customers members of my "team".

In my opinion distributing and releasing have different meanings with overlap. I don't even know what to convey means, so i probably should butt out, but still i want to get one point across.

Being from the real world ( by now you must be used to the dutch sense of humor ), i work on a business application in a disconnected mode. I then distribute my changes to my colleague workers and vice versa. All these changes get merged in a release candidate which will be shipped of for testing. This testing might well be done by an external company or even a willing customer. At the end of this chain the new version gets released to all customer. Only here I would use the word release. Anyway i'm not a lawyer don't know more about the GPL than the average guy, so what the heck am i doing here. Nighty night.

[bob]

I have not looked at stockfish and don't intend to.

You probably should: It already seems to be far stronger than Glaurung, and unlike Glaurung, Stockfish is likely to keep getting updated and improved in the future.

I simply want to see the GPL followed for programs released under the GPL.

As do I, of course. But in this case, everything is OK. The GPL does not require that you release your program to the public, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Tord

No, but it does mean that if you release it at all, you have to release the modified GPL code to the public.

True, but at the same time you seem to have a very liberal concept of 'releasing'. Volker is trying to form a team and started a application procedure to accomplish this. After accepting a member in his team he will send them the executable and sources for team use. I reckon this is how also big companies operate. I know your program is not GPL, but if it was, following your logic, since you are distributing your development program to all the nodes of your university cluster, which i guess is not your private property, you would have to release it there under a different licence, otherwise you would be obliged to release it to all.

I don't have a "liberal" interpretation of "release" I have a very specific interpretation. The modification has already been done. As per his original post. He now wants to _distribute_ this code to "trusted testers" (his terms). I don't see how one could interpret this any differently than I do. I can hardly develop a commercial product, sell the code and then call the customers members of my "team".

In my opinion distributing and releasing have different meanings with overlap. I don't even know what to convey means, so i probably should butt out, but still i want to get one point across.

Being from the real world ( by now you must be used to the dutch sense of humor ), i work on a business application in a disconnected mode. I then distribute my changes to my colleague workers and vice versa. All these changes get merged in a release candidate which will be shipped of for testing. This testing might well be done by an external company or even a willing customer. At the end of this chain the new version gets released to all customer. Only here I would use the word release. Anyway i'm not a lawyer don't know more about the GPL than the average guy, so what the heck am i doing here. Nighty night.

That's a different animal. Those of us working on Crafty do the same. But the GPL is quite clear about the term "convey". If you give someone a copy of a program, whether it is binary or executable or source, you "convey" it to them and the GPL that applied to the original source and to you as the modifier is passed on to that user as well. And the GPL is quite clear that it doesn't matter whether you give the software away or sell it, and yes you can copy a GPL program, modify it, and then sell the result. But you are _still_ required to include the modified source in the thing you distribute...

[bob]

What is wrong is that it simply violates the GPL. Could I take your code, modify it, then post a request for "team members" and then get say 1,000 volunteers and I pick 1/2 of them and distribute your program to them and tell them they can not distribute it to anyone else?

Where is this question coming from? This is not what Volker intends to do at all. He wants to find a small number of people he knows well and trust who wants to join him in developing and testing the program. The previously quoted excerpt from the GPL FAQ clearly says that it is allowed for an organization to have their own privately modified version of a GPL program without distributing it.

And do you really believe that a business can copy a GPL source program, modify it, sell it, but say "those are all developers so they don't have to / can't distribute the modified source because they are a part of our team" and get away with that?

He didn't ask for development help. He explicitly asked for some testers that would run the program, report results back to him, and not release any of his source code modifications.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me that that is simply contrary to the GPL.

There were long discussions about this very idea back when the GPL was created, and then when it was modified to version 2 and then version 3. The explicit intent is that when a program is based on a GPL code, whether it is sold or given away is irrelevant, the source must be released to the general public.

Absolutely not. Neither the program nor the source code must be released to the public. The GPL only says that if you give someone outside your organization a copy of the program, you must also give the user the source code (or an easy way to obtain the source code), and to redistribute the program (or modified versions of it) under the GPL.

This is squirming around semantics. Once you give the source to a single person, he is free to give it to anyone. That does eventually turn into the "general public" when you think about it. Clearly asking the end-user to _not_ distribute the source is a GPL violation, plain and simple.

This "organization" talk is nonsense. Asking in a public forum for a group of testers will not pass any sort of "smell test" for a single closed organization doing program development. Yes, such an organization _could_ exist. Lots of distributed software development projects around. Linux comes to mind, with developers all over the world. But this is not that, in terms of an "organization."

You don't have to take my word for this, you can once again read it in the GPL FAQ:

If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?

No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

In other words, neither you, I nor anyone else have the right to demand a copy of Volker's modified program from him or anyone else in his hypothetical team. He or they can continue to keep it private forever if they desire.

Tord

Right, but he can not insist, or even legally ask, that they _do_ keep it private. That is a clear violation of the GPL because it is 180 degrees out of phase with that document.

[henkf]

I have not looked at stockfish and don't intend to.

You probably should: It already seems to be far stronger than Glaurung, and unlike Glaurung, Stockfish is likely to keep getting updated and improved in the future.

I simply want to see the GPL followed for programs released under the GPL.

As do I, of course. But in this case, everything is OK. The GPL does not require that you release your program to the public, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Tord

No, but it does mean that if you release it at all, you have to release the modified GPL code to the public.

True, but at the same time you seem to have a very liberal concept of 'releasing'. Volker is trying to form a team and started a application procedure to accomplish this. After accepting a member in his team he will send them the executable and sources for team use. I reckon this is how also big companies operate. I know your program is not GPL, but if it was, following your logic, since you are distributing your development program to all the nodes of your university cluster, which i guess is not your private property, you would have to release it there under a different licence, otherwise you would be obliged to release it to all.

I don't have a "liberal" interpretation of "release" I have a very specific interpretation. The modification has already been done. As per his original post. He now wants to _distribute_ this code to "trusted testers" (his terms). I don't see how one could interpret this any differently than I do. I can hardly develop a commercial product, sell the code and then call the customers members of my "team".

In my opinion distributing and releasing have different meanings with overlap. I don't even know what to convey means, so i probably should butt out, but still i want to get one point across.

Being from the real world ( by now you must be used to the dutch sense of humor ), i work on a business application in a disconnected mode. I then distribute my changes to my colleague workers and vice versa. All these changes get merged in a release candidate which will be shipped of for testing. This testing might well be done by an external company or even a willing customer. At the end of this chain the new version gets released to all customer. Only here I would use the word release. Anyway i'm not a lawyer don't know more about the GPL than the average guy, so what the heck am i doing here. Nighty night.

That's a different animal. Those of us working on Crafty do the same. But the GPL is quite clear about the term "convey". If you give someone a copy of a program, whether it is binary or executable or source, you "convey" it to them and the GPL that applied to the original source and to you as the modifier is passed on to that user as well. And the GPL is quite clear that it doesn't matter whether you give the software away or sell it, and yes you can copy a GPL program, modify it, and then sell the result. But you are _still_ required to include the modified source in the thing you distribute...

Still awake. Recap.

You started of with using the word 'releasing'. I said i thought you had a liberal interpretation of the term. You said you had not, but at the same time you changed the term to 'distributing'. I told you that in my opinion those term are not the same and tried to explain why. Then you said that's a whole different animal and at the same time changing the term to 'conveying'. As if all these terms have exactly the same meaning.

I told you why distributing and releasing might not be the same. Tord told you that conveying and releasing are not the same thing. I still don't know what to convey means, but i tend to trust Tord on this, because I like his way of thinking. When I release my engine it will have a simple licence: "you can do anything with it what you want as long as Tord thinks it's the right thing to do"

[MattieShoes]

He is conveying covered works to others who provide facilities for running those works.

No. He is conveying it so THEY can run it. They are not providing facilities for him to run it.

If you lend me your computer and I use it (for example) via Remote desktop (Windows) or ssh (Unix), then this is providing facilities for running the works. If I give you a copy and you run tests for me, you are the one running it.

Oh come on. I don't know GPL from my elbow but the document is like two pages long and this is the very first thing after definitions.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

The very next line says Those thus making or running the covered works for you..." Obviously they're allowed to run it, or else that'd make no sense whatsoever.

It goes on to state on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you

I swear, it's like I'm reading a different document. The one I'm reading seems fairly straightforward and logical. The one you're reading sounds so broken that nobody in their right mind would use it.

[bob]

I have not looked at stockfish and don't intend to.

You probably should: It already seems to be far stronger than Glaurung, and unlike Glaurung, Stockfish is likely to keep getting updated and improved in the future.

I simply want to see the GPL followed for programs released under the GPL.

As do I, of course. But in this case, everything is OK. The GPL does not require that you release your program to the public, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Tord

No, but it does mean that if you release it at all, you have to release the modified GPL code to the public.

True, but at the same time you seem to have a very liberal concept of 'releasing'. Volker is trying to form a team and started a application procedure to accomplish this. After accepting a member in his team he will send them the executable and sources for team use. I reckon this is how also big companies operate. I know your program is not GPL, but if it was, following your logic, since you are distributing your development program to all the nodes of your university cluster, which i guess is not your private property, you would have to release it there under a different licence, otherwise you would be obliged to release it to all.

I don't have a "liberal" interpretation of "release" I have a very specific interpretation. The modification has already been done. As per his original post. He now wants to _distribute_ this code to "trusted testers" (his terms). I don't see how one could interpret this any differently than I do. I can hardly develop a commercial product, sell the code and then call the customers members of my "team".

In my opinion distributing and releasing have different meanings with overlap. I don't even know what to convey means, so i probably should butt out, but still i want to get one point across.

Being from the real world ( by now you must be used to the dutch sense of humor ), i work on a business application in a disconnected mode. I then distribute my changes to my colleague workers and vice versa. All these changes get merged in a release candidate which will be shipped of for testing. This testing might well be done by an external company or even a willing customer. At the end of this chain the new version gets released to all customer. Only here I would use the word release. Anyway i'm not a lawyer don't know more about the GPL than the average guy, so what the heck am i doing here. Nighty night.

That's a different animal. Those of us working on Crafty do the same. But the GPL is quite clear about the term "convey". If you give someone a copy of a program, whether it is binary or executable or source, you "convey" it to them and the GPL that applied to the original source and to you as the modifier is passed on to that user as well. And the GPL is quite clear that it doesn't matter whether you give the software away or sell it, and yes you can copy a GPL program, modify it, and then sell the result. But you are _still_ required to include the modified source in the thing you distribute...

Still awake. Recap.

You started of with using the word 'releasing'. I said i thought you had a liberal interpretation of the term. You said you had not, but at the same time you changed the term to 'distributing'. I told you that in my opinion those term are not the same and tried to explain why. Then you said that's a whole different animal and at the same time changing the term to 'conveying'. As if all these terms have exactly the same meaning.

I told you why distributing and releasing might not be the same. Tord told you that conveying and releasing are not the same thing. I still don't know what to convey means, but i tend to trust Tord on this, because I like his way of thinking. When I release my engine it will have a simple licence: "you can do anything with it what you want as long as Tord thinks it's the right thing to do"

OK, for clarity. "release" "distribute" "send to" "convey" "make available" are all synonyms for the same action, in this discussion. You could quibble over the exact definition of any of the above, but in the present context they all mean the same basic action, that of transferring a piece of software from user A to user B. I release new versions of Crafty regularly. I also "distribute" them. I make them available. I send them to people that ask for them. And overall I "convey" the new versions to everyone that wants them. Lawyers get into the legalese of terms like "convey," but I believe that for this discussion I believe they are the same.

In general when you "release" something you make it available to a group, that could be small or large, public or private, etc. None of that matters. The word "convey" is usually applied to an action between two people or two organizations, but more commonly between two people. I "convey" (give to you) this package.

As far as your last statement goes, Tord can do whatever he wants. But when someone copies his source, and then modifies it, they have certain implied responsibilities that they can not ignore. And if that person gives that software to anyone else, whether for monetary gain or not, that person inherits the same set of responsibilities that they can also not ignore. The GPL is a sort of "inherited" condition that can not be removed down the line. Tord can decide to no longer release his software under the protection of the GPL, whenever he wants. Versions already released are pretty much done however, but he can do whatever he wants in the future since he is the top of the food chain. But once he releases under GPL, nobody below him can take his code and make any changes to it, and then release that software under a more restrictive agreement. The original GPL trumps all.

That was the original point of my comment. One can not take a GPL program, modify it, and send it to others telling them they can not redistribute that modified code, because the GPL explicitly says that is not permissible. Whether we use the word release, give to, send to, convey to, distribute to, or whatever doesn't change a thing.