Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • I can see it being a borderline case if I'm providing a proprietary interface to free software, for sure (with the interface basically doing the exact same thing the free software does under the hood), but if I'm merely using it and it's essential for the program to function, but said free software's purpose is not intrinsically the same as the proprietary interface and is effectively being used like a system library, surely that could fall under the exception? Commented Aug 23, 2012 at 3:24
  • @PlatinumAzure: The analysis is too pessimistic. "providing a web service to allow people to use GPLed code" is unambiguously NOT distribution of that GPL code. Not just my opinion, but that of the FSF as well. If the author of the software disagreed with the FSF, he shouldn't have used their license. Commented Aug 23, 2012 at 8:04
  • There's no ambiguity. One of the primary reasons for creating GPL v3 was to close this so-called-loophole, as the "Aferro GPL" had already demonstrated. GPLv2 is all about distribution of code, not about its use. Commented Sep 9, 2012 at 1:16
  • @RossPatterson: the question was about GPLv2, as I've said in my post GPL gives you a lot of freedom when it comes to "usage", but it does it lots of limitation concerning "distribution of derivative works". While that part of the GPL is fairly straighforward, in GPLv2, it is open to interpretation whether a SaaS is a "usage" or "distribution". The GPLv2 said nothing about SaaS since it was designed before SaaS was commonplace, therefore the ambiguity. Commented Sep 9, 2012 at 3:13
  • @LieRyan SaaS use by users who did not receive binary distributions was freely acknowledged as not being "distribution", and as not requiring distribution of source code. The Free Software Foundation worked with Affero to create a modified GPLv2 (the "Affero GPL" v1) that treated such use as distribution. The is no ambiguity in GPLv2. Commented Sep 10, 2012 at 15:33