On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 00:38 +0000, Jim Cheetham wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 01:28:45PM +1300, Volker Kuhlmann wrote: > > > Imagine a software project is written in php and is released under the > > > GPL. > > > > > Are they obliged to release their changes? I am thinking that as they > > > only use their changes on their own website there is no "distribution" > > > of their changes, and the GPL does not require it's release. Am I right? > > > > Yes. The need to supply the source of any changes only kicks in when > > distributing changed binary. "In-house" is not distributed. > > No. :-) That's one of the major thrusts of the GPLv3 re-write, as I read > it ... > > One of the weasel-words in the copyright/license is "public performance" > - what does it mean to "publically perform" a bunch of source-code? Read > it out loud, or execute it on a web server? > > Take the example back a layer - just because I use an apache web server > to deliver content, do I have to make the source to it available to my > subscribers? What if I'd modified it? > What if the system in question was online voting? Should you have the right to examine the software that compiles the results of a major election?
What if the software examines medical scans? Should you be able to look at the source code of the program that decides on some aspect of your health? What about software that controls traffic lights at level crossings? You are a user of that software, though you don't download the binaries. I'd say these are examples of "public performance". We shouldn't ask "what won't we be able to hide from our users?", but "what is making decisions about our lives and being hidden from us that we have the right to examine?". Tim.
