451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
Closing open source loopholes
Jay Lyman, November 21, 2007 @ 2:23 pm ETSay what you want about GPLv3, but the update to the most popular open source software license continues to close loopholes that have been used to avoid sharing source code, patent protection and other freedoms that the authors intended. Still, we have yet to see whether this closes off any appeal of the GPL and even open source in general for vendors, developers and users.
This week brought the final release of the Affero GPLv3 (AGPLv3). Although the GPLv3 did not manage to cover software-as-a-service, also known as the ‘ASP loophole,’ the matter is addressed through GPLv3’s compatibility with AGPL. In its most recent release, the AGPLv3 goes beyond allowing for source code availability the same way software is delivered, whether via SaaS or other network or Web services model. It now requires source code availability whether the software is delivered via traditional release, download or via network.
The SaaS loophole is not the first to be knotted up by the Free Software Foundation. The GNU group behind the popular open source license managed in GPLv3 to deal with a matter known as ‘Tivoization.’ This is basically the use of GPL code in a hardware device, such as Tivo’s set-top box, where the hardware blocks access to the source code. Tivo and the Linux kernel it uses remain licensed under GPLv2, but the loophole has been closed in the most current version of the license, GPLv3.
While GPLv3 originally set out to tackle the issue of software patents, another loophole emerged with the Microsoft-Novell partnership a year ago, adding some urgency and significance to the issue. To avoid passing its promise not to pursue patent-based legal action onto all Linux users, Microsoft gave its promise directly to SUSE Linux customers. GPLv3 grandfathered the clever deal, but again, the license would prevent a similar arrangement today.
The question now is, what do these changes do to the popularity, uptake and continued success of the GPL? Will the Tivos of the world view GPL code-sharing requirements as too burdensome? Will it push them to more permissive licenses such as BSD? Will it push them all the way to Windows embedded? Does this put big open source users, such as Google, on notice that their open source use comes with obligations of openness and sharing?
The answers will come in time, but as new loopholes are discovered and used, it appears the FSF will be following along and stitching them closed.
Comments (8) Categories: Software
If this license was such a great idea, then why did SugarCRM go for GPLv3. Because it “really doesn’t matter”. Open source is marginally about the license. That’s all.
[...] GPLv3 is on the right track. Yesterday we provided an example in the form of one project that has already adopted the new Affero GPLv3. The 451 Group has just blogged about the adoption and the role of GPLv3. While GPLv3 originally set out to tackle the issue of software patents, another loophole emerged with the Microsoft-Novell partnership a year ago, adding some urgency and significance to the issue. To avoid passing its promise not to pursue patent-based legal action onto all Linux users, Microsoft gave its promise directly to SUSE Linux customers. GPLv3 grandfathered the clever deal, but again, the license would prevent a similar arrangement today. [...]
[...] You can read the full story here [...]
FSF left the door open for such a long time.. and it was simply to late to close it now. Too many stakeholders, too many interests. Affero is not going to get a broad acceptance by the market, they can stay with the GPL and enjoying proprietary SaaS business models.
A copyright holder may CHOOSE any license for that work.
Talking about code that corporations such as Google CHOOSE not to release is meaningless.
The point with the GNU GPL which is only sharpened with GNU GPLv3 and GNU AGPL, is:
IF the copyright holder CHOOSES to “Free” (Open) their Source, then using a GNU GPL license guarantees that code cannot be used *against* them by proprietary competitors.
This defense mechanism is only strengthened by later GPLs, so to “stay with the GPL and enjoying proprietary SaaS business models” for instance, is only applicable to those that are building on the code of others WITHOUT releasing.
IF a copyright holder CHOOSES to defend their work, the GPLv3 and AGPL are a stronger defense. This has nothing to do with people that are not CHOOSING to release code.
How to Find Free Government Grant Money…
Finding free government grant money can be time and labor intensive. Identifying the specific agencies and their purposes and specific subject areas can involve a lot of research work. Ads that claim the process is easy usually involve some sort of fra…
[...] to see whether other open source SaaS players follow Funambol’s lead. What will be the impacts of closing open source software’s [...]
[...] transfer the collaborative and community benefits of GPL to the software-as-a-service model. AGPLv3 closes a loophole that many would have preferred to see addressed by the GPLv3. However, because the ASP [...]