If we're using the GNU FAQs as an authoritative source - and it's a fair point, they are closer to the scene of the action - there are a couple which it might be worth mulling over. Quoting in full:
Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
Agreed, and the second FAQ you mentioned is what I was figuring the attorney's and GNU are intending by a private distribution.
However I don't think distribution is tied to any particular "physical" site. IOW, if you are running the software under the terms of your membership in the organization anywhere, you are bound those terms and don't acquire any further rights as an individual. In essence you are a "facility" of that organization in the context of running the software. If this wasn't the case, problems would arise in using the software for the exact same purpose (say a process control package for a piece of equipment for example) on different physical sites of the same organization, which I don't think is the intent of the GPL.
I think the key here is whether the distribution is internal to the organization, or if it is available to the public with no restrictions or conditions imposed.
For the second passage, I guess the crux of the bisquit here is whether a member would be considered an outside contactor or are they an integral part of the organization in the context of running the software and distribution.
All tough questions, but I can offer as anecdotal evidence the case of the SETI-USA SAH app. When it initially appeared and these questions were raised over there, the Project made an official statement that they do in fact encourage third parties to develop both the BOINC and SAH app software. They also stated that Berkeley as the copyright holder for software is proactive in defending their intellectual property under those copyrights and would take appropriate action if violations were occuring. It would seem that since AFAIK SETI-USA has not been asked to cease and desist in the use of their private release of the SAH app, Berkeley feels they are in compliance with the GPL licensing requirements of the original source code the app is based on (at least in their opinion).
In any event, a good spirited debate on topics which have broad impact on people is fun, and it is always a pleasure to do so with a thoughtful and eloquent opponent such as yourself, sir. :-)
Sometimes they can be few and far between in public fora. ;-)
Alinator
Regarding the first passage, this is where it starts to get really complicated. ;-)
My read of the relevent FAQ's was the exact rights and obligations of the developer/client relationship were separate from the GPL license itself, as long as they in no way restricted the rights granted to a third party if the modified software was released to the public.
Well, I thank you for your kind words, good sir, and may I in my turn compliment you on your debating skill and courteous manner.
The SETI example you cite is too long to quote in full, but interested readers can find the reference in this post. The official SETI position is:
"WE OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF OPTIMIZED SETI@HOME APPLICATIONS, provided the license terms of the GPL are followed."
(Their capitals. Note the inclusion of the words 'and distribution').
There seems to be less on the public record about the BOINC client, but since the two development teams are so closely related, I'm sure the same principle applies.
There is, however, a problem relating to the distribution of BOINC from Berkeley under GPL. They aren't complying with it! Specifically:
The
website claims it is "distributed under the Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL)" - it isn't, as a search of the nightly tarball reveals. It's the full GPL.
The GPL text isn't distributed with the BOINC executable.
The distributed BOINC executable contains no visible (to me) reference to the GPL, lack of warranty, or redistribution rights. It does have a copyright dialog where these elements could (and perhaps should) be displayed.and so on. I could go on, but I won't - time for a civilised meal and sign-off for the night, this side of the pond.
Hmm. Typically the word "you" is addressed to a person or to a legal person. A legal person is an individual or a corporation or in some cases a club. But the organisation would have to have some kind of articles of association, etc etc etc. Key question is if SETI-USA does the wrong thing, who do you sue? To me it is pretty clear that SETI-USA or any other BOINC team for that matter does not constitute a legal person and you would have to seek redress from individuals. In that sense, a team member who modifies GPL code is acting as an individual and not as the team. (heck, the team does not have any kind of governing body to stop him/her doing it!)
If you accept that, then if the team member then gave the software out to other members of the team, then he/she would definitely be "distributing" it because the transfer would be from one legal person to another.
Taking another look at it, suppose I was able to declare my team as a single "you" for purposes of GPL, then I could modify GPL code and then sell it freely without distributing source by simply:
a) Forming a boinc team
b) charging a membership fee to join, payable to me.
c) sending all members a binary copy.
It's asinine.
--Mark
Quote:
Quote:
And therein lies the problem. You are quoting a commentary, or gloss, on the licence, just as I did. If you go back to the source text of the licence itself, the word 'organisation' is nowhere mentioned - not even as 'organization'!
In the actual licence, 'Each licensee is addressed as "you"', and the critical sentence is:
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
Notice that the word is "recipient", as I quoted from Wikipedia.
So who is the "You" who is the original licensee in this case, on whom this obligation is placed? Did Berkeley licence the original to SETI-USA, or to an individual downloading programmer?
Agreed, but there is a crucial difference between the two interpretation sections of the license clause in question, which is the FAQ's on the GNU GPL were written to clarify the license text with the assistance of the GNU legal team. One has to consider it to be the more definitive interpretation of the intent of the license. The final arbiter of the intent, of course, would be a Court of Law in the jurisdiction where a case of license violation was filed.
With regard to the definition of "you" in the license text, at least here in the US, organizations are granted many of the rights and privileges of the individual.
Thus in the example of SETI-USA, the team is the licensee and has the right to make a binary only distribution of modified code to its members under the terms of the license. Members of the team are *not* recipients, they are users of the software in this context and are obligated to *not* distribute the binary outside of the team since they are not a licensee. This addresses roadrunner's comment in that the distribution of the modified binary to team members *only* does not constitute a release to the public. I would suspect (but have not researched it) that to be fully compliant with the GPL, SETI-USA would have to include some sort of EULA which stated any software provided was copyrighted by them and others, and use and/or distribution to non-team members was prohibited.
Regarding your last comment, there are also GNU FAQ's pertaining to the relationship between a developer and the organization sponsoring work done on their behalf under the GPL regarding transfer of rights and license obligations. Admittedly things get a little murky then, since you would have to be privy to the details of any terms drawn up between those two parties, but it is clear arrangements about non-disclosure can be reached which are in compliance with the GPL.
Again in the case of SETI-USA, the fact that Crunch3r (or others) is/are developing the software for them doesn't change the team's right to privately distribute a binary based on it. On the other hand, if they release a stripped down version of it to the public at large, then they would have to make the source code available for that version.
I should say that while I myself am not a lawyer, I have been involved with several projects which incorporated Open Source/GPL software for internal organizational use, and the advice from counsel was essentially what I stated above regarding the use of and license compliance with the software.
Hmm. Typically the word "you" is addressed to a person or to a legal person. A legal person is an individual or a corporation or in some cases a club. But the organisation would have to have some kind of articles of association, etc etc etc. Key question is if SETI-USA does the wrong thing, who do you sue? To me it is pretty clear that SETI-USA or any other BOINC team for that matter does not constitute a legal person and you would have to seek redress from individuals. In that sense, a team member who modifies GPL code is acting as an individual and not as the team. (heck, the team does not have any kind of governing body to stop him/her doing it!)
If you accept that, then if the team member then gave the software out to other members of the team, then he/she would definitely be "distributing" it because the transfer would be from one legal person to another.
Taking another look at it, suppose I was able to declare my team as a single "you" for purposes of GPL, then I could modify GPL code and then sell it freely without distributing source by simply:
a) Forming a boinc team
b) charging a membership fee to join, payable to me.
c) sending all members a binary copy.
It's asinine.
--Mark
You raise some good points here.
Your observation on whether a loose association, such as a BOINC team, constitutes an organiztion in the legal sense is certainly valid. I would argue that it does for the following reasons:
1.) You need to join/register to obtain full access to the services on the site/club.
2.) It has a founder, and by definition there is someone responsible for setting up and maintaining the website, though not necessarily the same person as the founder.
3.) It has mechanisms for the dissemination and communication of information, as well as collaboration and sharing of resources between members.
4.) There are well defined private areas for members only.
Already this is far beyond what is possible for a "team" in the strict BOINC sense of the word, and would seem to me to have all of the essential elements of an organization.
The question of whether they need to have a charter and/or more formal structure plays more of a role in defining whether they would enjoy limited liability for the "officers" in case of any disputes. In the absense of one, I would suspect the "point people" would carry more of this burden.
Regarding your question as to liability in case of disputes. I would suspect that, disclaimers aside, a Court of Law would hold the Webmaster responsible for any content presented on the site in the absense of another verifiable entity. Whether he would have culpable liability is another question, and most likely would only be required to remove the disputed material in a case such as this.
Pertaining to who is responsible for the release of and who is the copyright holder for GPL'ed software in this scenario, I disagree with your analysis. As Mr. Haselgrove and I were discussing, it is clear independant developer/client relationships are permitted under the GPL (as highlighted in the GNU GPL FAQ's), and the transfer of copyright, non-disclosure, and other private matters between those parties are allowed as long as they don't restrict the rights a third party would have under the license *depending* on what kind of a release was being made. I think it is fairly clear that if the private release is being made under the auspices of the team, then the team is the responsible party in all actions related to that release.
To address the issues you make specfically, whereas the team has no power to stop a member from excercising their right's under the GPL to modify the original Berkeley source code, they most certainly have the power to prevent *anyone* from releasing the modifications under their name, governing body or not.
I believe your extrapolation from there to individual members swapping modifcations between themselves is faulty, in that as long as the exchanges were happening in the members only sections of the website, then these would be considered to be private releases (or possibly collaboration depending on the circumstances) and not constitute a public release requiring source disclosure.
Your final scenario is closely related to another issue covered on the GNU GPL site. It is stated there that "free" in the sense of zero cost is not the intent or purpose of the GPL. From my read of it, there would be nothing wrong with doing exactly what you suggest (assuming you could get people to pay cash money for your service), as long as you provide a EULA stipulating the software is copyrighted and distribution outside of the confines of the team is prohibited. It is further stated there, the fact the software in this case is used to process data from a different public third party does not mean the software itself was released publicly, even though it originated from that public third party.
The key here is when you are acting as part/on behalf of a team you are not the individual in that context. If you run the binary under the terms of your membership, you are bound by the terms of that membership.
Finally, I see nothing asinine in any of the conversation so far, sir, unless you are saying the GPL specifically allowing private releases is. However, that would be an entirely different matter.
Alinator
Perhaps at this point further discussion would be more appropriate over at BOINC Alpha, since this really isn't directly related to EAH.
I wasn't accusing you or anyone else being asinine. My apologies if it could be interpreted as such. However, I was showing that an arbitrarily convenient interpretation of what constitutes a legal person leads to some pretty asinine conclusions. (BTW my use of the word freely was free as in speech, not free as in beer, and I guess I should have made explicit that I distribute the binary without the source and make no offer to distribute the source.)
What constitutes a legal person is pretty much consistant across most legal systems, but probably also differs somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I still believe that a Boinc team, even if it has a website set up by some individual or individuals that requires registration, etc etc. does not constitute a legal person, and hence could not be the licence holder under GPL (or any other licence.)
If I am correct in the above (and correctness may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) then putting your code up on the team website for members would definitely constitute "distribution". Under GPL this means you have to distribute the source code as well and grant the same right of distribution to your team members. But as far as I can tell there is no requirement that you distribute it to others if you don't want to.
So in effect there is nothing wrong with Crunch3r distributing one version of his modifications to the general boinc community and a different version to members of his team. But he has to distribute the source code in both cases, and if a team member decides to distribute the "team" version to outsiders, that is OK too as long as he/she also distributes the modified source code. (This is assuming the boinc client source code is actually covered by GPL, something which seems to be in question at the moment and which I don't care about since I don't intend to either modify or distribute it.)
--miw
Quote:
Quote:
Hmm. Typically the word "you" is addressed to a person or to a legal person. A legal person is an individual or a corporation or in some cases a club. But the organisation would have to have some kind of articles of association, etc etc etc. Key question is if SETI-USA does the wrong thing, who do you sue? To me it is pretty clear that SETI-USA or any other BOINC team for that matter does not constitute a legal person and you would have to seek redress from individuals. In that sense, a team member who modifies GPL code is acting as an individual and not as the team. (heck, the team does not have any kind of governing body to stop him/her doing it!)
If you accept that, then if the team member then gave the software out to other members of the team, then he/she would definitely be "distributing" it because the transfer would be from one legal person to another.
Taking another look at it, suppose I was able to declare my team as a single "you" for purposes of GPL, then I could modify GPL code and then sell it freely without distributing source by simply:
a) Forming a boinc team
b) charging a membership fee to join, payable to me.
c) sending all members a binary copy.
It's asinine.
--Mark
You raise some good points here.
Your observation on whether a loose association, such as a BOINC team, constitutes an organiztion in the legal sense is certainly valid. I would argue that it does for the following reasons:
1.) You need to join/register to obtain full access to the services on the site/club.
2.) It has a founder, and by definition there is someone responsible for setting up and maintaining the website, though not necessarily the same person as the founder.
3.) It has mechanisms for the dissemination and communication of information, as well as collaboration and sharing of resources between members.
4.) There are well defined private areas for members only.
Already this is far beyond what is possible for a "team" in the strict BOINC sense of the word, and would seem to me to have all of the essential elements of an organization.
The question of whether they need to have a charter and/or more formal structure plays more of a role in defining whether they would enjoy limited liability for the "officers" in case of any disputes. In the absense of one, I would suspect the "point people" would carry more of this burden.
Regarding your question as to liability in case of disputes. I would suspect that, disclaimers aside, a Court of Law would hold the Webmaster responsible for any content presented on the site in the absense of another verifiable entity. Whether he would have culpable liability is another question, and most likely would only be required to remove the disputed material in a case such as this.
Pertaining to who is responsible for the release of and who is the copyright holder for GPL'ed software in this scenario, I disagree with your analysis. As Mr. Haselgrove and I were discussing, it is clear independant developer/client relationships are permitted under the GPL (as highlighted in the GNU GPL FAQ's), and the transfer of copyright, non-disclosure, and other private matters between those parties are allowed as long as they don't restrict the rights a third party would have under the license *depending* on what kind of a release was being made. I think it is fairly clear that if the private release is being made under the auspices of the team, then the team is the responsible party in all actions related to that release.
To address the issues you make specfically, whereas the team has no power to stop a member from excercising their right's under the GPL to modify the original Berkeley source code, they most certainly have the power to prevent *anyone* from releasing the modifications under their name, governing body or not.
I believe your extrapolation from there to individual members swapping modifcations between themselves is faulty, in that as long as the exchanges were happening in the members only sections of the website, then these would be considered to be private releases (or possibly collaboration depending on the circumstances) and not constitute a public release requiring source disclosure.
Your final scenario is closely related to another issue covered on the GNU GPL site. It is stated there that "free" in the sense of zero cost is not the intent or purpose of the GPL. From my read of it, there would be nothing wrong with doing exactly what you suggest (assuming you could get people to pay cash money for your service), as long as you provide a EULA stipulating the software is copyrighted and distribution outside of the confines of the team is prohibited. It is further stated there, the fact the software in this case is used to process data from a different public third party does not mean the software itself was released publicly, even though it originated from that public third party.
The key here is when you are acting as part/on behalf of a team you are not the individual in that context. If you run the binary under the terms of your membership, you are bound by the terms of that membership.
Finally, I see nothing asinine in any of the conversation so far, sir, unless you are saying the GPL specifically allowing private releases is. However, that would be an entirely different matter.
Alinator
Perhaps at this point further discussion would be more appropriate over at BOINC Alpha, since this really isn't directly related to EAH.
There's no problem in a developer making two (or several) different sets of modifications. There's no problem in distributing different versions to different sets of people. There's no problem in making an extra-special version, and keeping it for your own use.
But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that BOINC is licenced under GPL, and giving a copy to a team-mate is distribution, then I have a major problem with anyone attempting to take away that team-mate's freedom to make and pass on further copies.
There's no problem in a developer making two (or several) different sets of modifications. There's no problem in distributing different versions to different sets of people. There's no problem in making an extra-special version, and keeping it for your own use.
But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that BOINC is licenced under GPL, and giving a copy to a team-mate is distribution, then I have a major problem with anyone attempting to take away that team-mate's freedom to make and pass on further copies.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying I approve of, or am advocating "private" releases in this context. In fact, my initial reaction on several issues when whole sorry affair began originally was; "How can you do something like that with GPL'ed software?". At the very least it would appear to not be keeping with the spirit of the project (as stated by the principals), if not the letter of the license.
If we're using the GNU FAQs
)
If we're using the GNU FAQs as an authoritative source - and it's a fair point, they are closer to the scene of the action - there are a couple which it might be worth mulling over. Quoting in full:
Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
Agreed, and the second FAQ
)
Agreed, and the second FAQ you mentioned is what I was figuring the attorney's and GNU are intending by a private distribution.
However I don't think distribution is tied to any particular "physical" site. IOW, if you are running the software under the terms of your membership in the organization anywhere, you are bound those terms and don't acquire any further rights as an individual. In essence you are a "facility" of that organization in the context of running the software. If this wasn't the case, problems would arise in using the software for the exact same purpose (say a process control package for a piece of equipment for example) on different physical sites of the same organization, which I don't think is the intent of the GPL.
I think the key here is whether the distribution is internal to the organization, or if it is available to the public with no restrictions or conditions imposed.
For the second passage, I guess the crux of the bisquit here is whether a member would be considered an outside contactor or are they an integral part of the organization in the context of running the software and distribution.
All tough questions, but I can offer as anecdotal evidence the case of the SETI-USA SAH app. When it initially appeared and these questions were raised over there, the Project made an official statement that they do in fact encourage third parties to develop both the BOINC and SAH app software. They also stated that Berkeley as the copyright holder for software is proactive in defending their intellectual property under those copyrights and would take appropriate action if violations were occuring. It would seem that since AFAIK SETI-USA has not been asked to cease and desist in the use of their private release of the SAH app, Berkeley feels they are in compliance with the GPL licensing requirements of the original source code the app is based on (at least in their opinion).
In any event, a good spirited debate on topics which have broad impact on people is fun, and it is always a pleasure to do so with a thoughtful and eloquent opponent such as yourself, sir. :-)
Sometimes they can be few and far between in public fora. ;-)
Alinator
Regarding the first passage, this is where it starts to get really complicated. ;-)
My read of the relevent FAQ's was the exact rights and obligations of the developer/client relationship were separate from the GPL license itself, as long as they in no way restricted the rights granted to a third party if the modified software was released to the public.
Alinator
Well, I thank you for your
)
Well, I thank you for your kind words, good sir, and may I in my turn compliment you on your debating skill and courteous manner.
The SETI example you cite is too long to quote in full, but interested readers can find the reference in this post. The official SETI position is:
"WE OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF OPTIMIZED SETI@HOME APPLICATIONS, provided the license terms of the GPL are followed."
(Their capitals. Note the inclusion of the words 'and distribution').
There seems to be less on the public record about the BOINC client, but since the two development teams are so closely related, I'm sure the same principle applies.
There is, however, a problem relating to the distribution of BOINC from Berkeley under GPL. They aren't complying with it! Specifically:
website claims it is "distributed under the Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL)" - it isn't, as a search of the nightly tarball reveals. It's the full GPL. The GPL text isn't distributed with the BOINC executable.
The distributed BOINC executable contains no visible (to me) reference to the GPL, lack of warranty, or redistribution rights. It does have a copyright dialog where these elements could (and perhaps should) be displayed.and so on. I could go on, but I won't - time for a civilised meal and sign-off for the night, this side of the pond.
Alinator - feel free to join
)
Alinator - feel free to join in here.
Hmm. Typically the word "you"
)
Hmm. Typically the word "you" is addressed to a person or to a legal person. A legal person is an individual or a corporation or in some cases a club. But the organisation would have to have some kind of articles of association, etc etc etc. Key question is if SETI-USA does the wrong thing, who do you sue? To me it is pretty clear that SETI-USA or any other BOINC team for that matter does not constitute a legal person and you would have to seek redress from individuals. In that sense, a team member who modifies GPL code is acting as an individual and not as the team. (heck, the team does not have any kind of governing body to stop him/her doing it!)
If you accept that, then if the team member then gave the software out to other members of the team, then he/she would definitely be "distributing" it because the transfer would be from one legal person to another.
Taking another look at it, suppose I was able to declare my team as a single "you" for purposes of GPL, then I could modify GPL code and then sell it freely without distributing source by simply:
a) Forming a boinc team
b) charging a membership fee to join, payable to me.
c) sending all members a binary copy.
It's asinine.
--Mark
--miw
RE: Hmm. Typically the word
)
You raise some good points here.
Your observation on whether a loose association, such as a BOINC team, constitutes an organiztion in the legal sense is certainly valid. I would argue that it does for the following reasons:
1.) You need to join/register to obtain full access to the services on the site/club.
2.) It has a founder, and by definition there is someone responsible for setting up and maintaining the website, though not necessarily the same person as the founder.
3.) It has mechanisms for the dissemination and communication of information, as well as collaboration and sharing of resources between members.
4.) There are well defined private areas for members only.
Already this is far beyond what is possible for a "team" in the strict BOINC sense of the word, and would seem to me to have all of the essential elements of an organization.
The question of whether they need to have a charter and/or more formal structure plays more of a role in defining whether they would enjoy limited liability for the "officers" in case of any disputes. In the absense of one, I would suspect the "point people" would carry more of this burden.
Regarding your question as to liability in case of disputes. I would suspect that, disclaimers aside, a Court of Law would hold the Webmaster responsible for any content presented on the site in the absense of another verifiable entity. Whether he would have culpable liability is another question, and most likely would only be required to remove the disputed material in a case such as this.
Pertaining to who is responsible for the release of and who is the copyright holder for GPL'ed software in this scenario, I disagree with your analysis. As Mr. Haselgrove and I were discussing, it is clear independant developer/client relationships are permitted under the GPL (as highlighted in the GNU GPL FAQ's), and the transfer of copyright, non-disclosure, and other private matters between those parties are allowed as long as they don't restrict the rights a third party would have under the license *depending* on what kind of a release was being made. I think it is fairly clear that if the private release is being made under the auspices of the team, then the team is the responsible party in all actions related to that release.
To address the issues you make specfically, whereas the team has no power to stop a member from excercising their right's under the GPL to modify the original Berkeley source code, they most certainly have the power to prevent *anyone* from releasing the modifications under their name, governing body or not.
I believe your extrapolation from there to individual members swapping modifcations between themselves is faulty, in that as long as the exchanges were happening in the members only sections of the website, then these would be considered to be private releases (or possibly collaboration depending on the circumstances) and not constitute a public release requiring source disclosure.
Your final scenario is closely related to another issue covered on the GNU GPL site. It is stated there that "free" in the sense of zero cost is not the intent or purpose of the GPL. From my read of it, there would be nothing wrong with doing exactly what you suggest (assuming you could get people to pay cash money for your service), as long as you provide a EULA stipulating the software is copyrighted and distribution outside of the confines of the team is prohibited. It is further stated there, the fact the software in this case is used to process data from a different public third party does not mean the software itself was released publicly, even though it originated from that public third party.
The key here is when you are acting as part/on behalf of a team you are not the individual in that context. If you run the binary under the terms of your membership, you are bound by the terms of that membership.
Finally, I see nothing asinine in any of the conversation so far, sir, unless you are saying the GPL specifically allowing private releases is. However, that would be an entirely different matter.
Alinator
Perhaps at this point further discussion would be more appropriate over at BOINC Alpha, since this really isn't directly related to EAH.
See link in Richard's previous post.
Alinator
Alinator, I wasn't
)
Alinator,
I wasn't accusing you or anyone else being asinine. My apologies if it could be interpreted as such. However, I was showing that an arbitrarily convenient interpretation of what constitutes a legal person leads to some pretty asinine conclusions. (BTW my use of the word freely was free as in speech, not free as in beer, and I guess I should have made explicit that I distribute the binary without the source and make no offer to distribute the source.)
What constitutes a legal person is pretty much consistant across most legal systems, but probably also differs somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I still believe that a Boinc team, even if it has a website set up by some individual or individuals that requires registration, etc etc. does not constitute a legal person, and hence could not be the licence holder under GPL (or any other licence.)
If I am correct in the above (and correctness may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) then putting your code up on the team website for members would definitely constitute "distribution". Under GPL this means you have to distribute the source code as well and grant the same right of distribution to your team members. But as far as I can tell there is no requirement that you distribute it to others if you don't want to.
So in effect there is nothing wrong with Crunch3r distributing one version of his modifications to the general boinc community and a different version to members of his team. But he has to distribute the source code in both cases, and if a team member decides to distribute the "team" version to outsiders, that is OK too as long as he/she also distributes the modified source code. (This is assuming the boinc client source code is actually covered by GPL, something which seems to be in question at the moment and which I don't care about since I don't intend to either modify or distribute it.)
--miw
--miw
Agreed, exactly. There's
)
Agreed, exactly.
There's no problem in a developer making two (or several) different sets of modifications. There's no problem in distributing different versions to different sets of people. There's no problem in making an extra-special version, and keeping it for your own use.
But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that BOINC is licenced under GPL, and giving a copy to a team-mate is distribution, then I have a major problem with anyone attempting to take away that team-mate's freedom to make and pass on further copies.
Agree 100%.
)
Agree 100%.
--miw
@Mark: No problemo, no
)
@Mark: No problemo, no offense taken. :-)
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying I approve of, or am advocating "private" releases in this context. In fact, my initial reaction on several issues when whole sorry affair began originally was; "How can you do something like that with GPL'ed software?". At the very least it would appear to not be keeping with the spirit of the project (as stated by the principals), if not the letter of the license.
Alinator