Hacker News Reader

Comment by altairprime | Hacker News Reader

> if you want to extend the software, you must distribute source code with it

Incorrect. GPLv3 does not require source code distribution if you choose to only distribute your extensions to third parties that are under a current contract to you to operate or modify the work or any derivative thereof on your behalf and to destroy all copies of your extensions at the conclusion of the contracted operational and/or modification work.

I’m surprised that $1 modification contracts for GPLv3 works are uncommon. Open source isn’t free!

(I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

View on HN

Isn't this how using GPL-ed code in commercial contexts work? You don't have to share sources with the outsiders if you don't ship the program to the outsiders - and your employees and contractors are bound by their contracts to share neither the proprietary extensions nor the resulting program with the outside world. Note that SaaS means you're not shipping backend software to users, which created a loophole that has a special GPL variant patching it.

altairprime's idea seems to be to sell the software to your users, but hire them as contractors to modify the gpl code so they can not redistribute it themselves.

So on perm saas where the on perm operators are technical hired for $1 so the software was never legally distributed to the company that hired the on perm saas service.

Seems dubious to me.

Specifically, it’s dubious because GPLv3 requires the third party’s modification and/or hosted operation to be exclusively on behalf of / for the client. A judge and/or jury would need to evaluate whether the license is legally valid in that jurisdiction, and whether an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the license through obligating a contracted third-party to use the code would regardless still comply. (For example, QA is permissible use, but what if QA has to be done at scale in a for-profit production environment by the contracted third party, etc.) I expect that a reasonable and demonstrated set of modifications and setting and enforcement milestones would both be essential to a determination in favor of it being permissible use — but of course I cannot guarantee this with certainty, lacking any prior judgments to refer to. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

If youre contracted to provide software to party A. If that software includes gpled parts you have to supply the source to them. That doesn't mean you have to supply the source to everyone.

Samsung or however could require proof that you'd actually bought one of their TVs before supplying the source. In practice they dont, but they could.

Red hat are now doing exactly this. Only red hat customers can get hold of the red hat source.

> I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.

I've quoted the one bit of your statement I agree with. You suggest an entirely artificial relationship to completely bypass the clear intention of the licence. To be blunt, that's a terrible suggestion.

I encourage you to reconcile your disagreement with my first paragraph, and GPL 3.0 section 2 paragraph 2. (I certainly respect your disagreement with my second paragraph, though!)

Okay to be fair, your first paragraph was spot on! It's an interesting but not widely discussed exception.

(I think the word "purpose" in said paragraph encapsulates why I strongly disagree with your conclusion on your second paragraph.)

Agreed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36500774

Reply on news.ycombinator.com