/ Zope / Apsis / Pound Mailing List / Archive / 2008 / 2008-02 / Pound licensing - moved to GPLv3

[ << ] [ >> ]

[ warnings in 2.4 compile / "Jacob ... ] [ not body! / "AN(at)S" ... ]

Pound licensing - moved to GPLv3
Kenneth Burgener <kenneth(at)mail1.ttak.org>
2008-02-11 18:50:43 [ FULL ]
I saw the new version announcement, and noticed the following...
[...]

This lead me to wonder, can one use Pound to front a commercial website 
(ie. SaaS)?

The website says "Pound is distributed under the GPL - no warranty, it's 
free to use, copy and give away."  Does this include for commercial use?

As a side question, did GPLv3 ever determine if the ASP or SaaS loophole 
would be closed or left open?

Thanks,
Kenneth

Re: [Pound Mailing List] Pound licensing - moved to GPLv3
Kenneth Burgener <kenneth(at)mail1.ttak.org>
2008-02-14 06:25:56 [ FULL ]
Anyone?  Anyone?  Beuller?  Beuller?


Kenneth Burgener wrote:[...][...][...]

Re: [Pound Mailing List] Pound licensing - moved to GPLv3
"David Rees" <drees76(at)gmail.com>
2008-02-14 09:16:47 [ FULL ]
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Kenneth Burgener
<kenneth(at)mail1.ttak.org> wrote:[...]

Yes.
[...]

Yes.
[...]

What loophole are you talking about?

The main thing you need to remember is that if you sell or distribute
a product with Pound as part of it, you must also provide the source
code to Pound. If you modify Pound as part of your product, you must
also provide those modifications.

You sound very confused, perhaps reading the GPL FAQ would help answer
your questions:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

-Dave

Re: [Pound Mailing List] Pound licensing - moved to GPLv3
"David Rees" <drees76(at)gmail.com>
2008-02-14 10:49:23 [ FULL ]
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:16 AM, David Rees <drees76(at)gmail.com>
wrote:[...]

To answer your question, the GPLv3 did not close the ASP/SaaS
loophole. But I don't think that would apply here, anyway, unless you
were making modifications to Pound itself (or otherwise linking to
Pound in some way would would not be the typical usage pattern).

-Dave

Re: [Pound Mailing List] Pound licensing - moved to GPLv3
Kenneth Burgener <kenneth(at)mail1.ttak.org>
2008-02-14 17:55:06 [ FULL ]
David Rees wrote:[...][...][...]


I think that is what the concern was.  What classifies as distributing? 
  If your product is an online service, and you use Pound to host that 
online service, is providing access to this service classified as 
distributing the product?  Obviously with GPLv1 and GPLv2 the 
distribution classified only as a binary file, so the answer was no.

GPL advocates wanted to close this so called ASP or SaaS loophole with 
GPLv3, but as you mentioned in your follow up email, GPLv3 apparently 
did not close it.  If they were to have close it, as the sister AGPL 
license has done, would this mean no commercial site could host anything 
with Pound ever again (without having to release all their host 
applications source code)?


Kenneth

Re: [Pound Mailing List] Pound licensing - moved to GPLv3
Ed R Zahurak <ezahurak(at)atlanticbb.net>
2008-02-14 19:47:22 [ FULL ]
(There isn't really a "G" in "GPL".  If you look closely, the "G" is 
really a little hammer and sickle.)

Kenneth Burgener wrote:[...][...]
>>>  As a side question, did GPLv3 ever determine if the ASP or SaaS 
>>> loophole
>>>  would be closed or left open?[...][...]

MailBoxer