This is a great question and speaks to a lot of confusion about the GPL. The answer is mostly “yes” here, but since the GPL is frequently seen as very scary, it is important to understand why this is allowed.
Note that you say two contradictory things in your post, first that you
don't actually distribute the software, only its output
and the ...
Generally yes, the output is not covered by the license. However you say you will redistribute the virtual machine with the pipeline setup.
Nope, providing the virtual machine with executable binaries is the distribution of the executable binaries so please source code on the table. Just wrapping the virtual machine around does not change anything.
To any recipients. You do not have to make the source code available to the public, but have to provide the source code to anyone who received the software from you.
The details here depend on how you want to provide the source code (see section 6 of the GPLv3):
The easiest way is to always bundle the corresponding source code when you give someone a copy ...
GPL licenses are legal documents, so you modify them or ignore their terms at your own risk!
GNU.org has an FAQ addressing this:
Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program? (#WhyMustIInclude)
Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what ...
Yes, and no.
As per the question you linked, if you're the only contributor, you can do whatever you want with the project. You can take it off GitHub or whatever platform you decided, you can compile and sell it, and whatnot.
You cannot do that if you aren't the sole contributor. You are no longer the only rights holder, and thus, the decision ...
TL;DR: The legal incompatibilities between the GPL and the App store TOS don't apply to the MPL, but there is no saying whether Apple will allow your MPL licensed app.
First off, what Apple allows and doesn't allow in their app store is entirely up to Apple. As far as I know, they reserve the right to refuse any app for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, it ...
but that is [in] my opinion not in accordance with the GPL licences
I agree with you. The GPL has always been pretty clear that you need to supply source if you're propagating binaries, and various authorities have opined that pointing to someone else's repository is not sufficient, eg
companies who redistribute software packaged for them by an upstream
Linux (the Kernel) uses the GPL 2.0 with an extra statement:
NOTE! This copyright does not cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does not fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
It might be helpful to provide the motivation for the GPL.
If I run your application on my computer, I should be able to read the corresponding working source codes and modify them as needed. It recognizes the right of the computer owner to retain control over his computer, regarldess of the software he has installed.
It does not say code should be free. ...
I can think of a few reasons:
Conflation with EULAs. As you mentioned, copyright licenses deal with redistribution, not usage. EULAs, as their name implies (End User License Agreement), are contracts that restrict your rights as a user, and are therefore something the user must agree to before using the software, and naturally belong in places like the ...
Much would depend on the initial license chosen when creating the OS project.
If the OSP was originally published under a copyleft license such as GPL, then the answer is clearly no. They can not continue development under a more restrictive license without violating the terms of the original license.
A permissive license, such as Apache, allows the ...
For Debian you can proceed as follows:
Post an Intent to Package (ITP) bug report to the Debian Bug
Tracking system (https://www.debian.org/Bugs/). Or if an existing
RFP (Request for Packaging) bug report for the software already
exists, you can assign it to yourself.
Create the packaging for the software.
Upload the software and the packaging to ...
Software isn't inherently licensed in any particular way. Rather, it is released under a licence; which licence or licences it is released under are at the discretion of the copyright holder. That there can be many different licences under which a piece of software is released should make it clear that the licence isn't an inherent property of the software....
Distributing the Virtual Machine with the GPL-including-Software and not providing the sources (and/or the possibility to download/receive them) along with a GPL License notice is clearly a violation of the GPL itself.
Furthermore and if the Virtual Machine is based on a Linux distibution, distributing the Virtual Machine without the GPL'ed sources, i.e.: ...
This is covered in section 3 of the GPL, version 2:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which ...
Technically yes, but practically no.
Technically yes - if you're the sole contributor, or you can get agreement with your co-contributors, you can do anything you like. It doesn't matter how you've distributed the software before: the original copyright is yours (or a group's and you have permission to act for that group) and you have permanent rights to do ...
@FaheemMitha already gave a perfect answer for Debian, but I wanted to add the process for Ubuntu. If a package is included in Debian, it will automatically be included in Ubuntu shortly down the road:
Ubuntu regularly incorporates source packages from Debian, so it is encouraged to upload a package to Debian first to automatically have it in Ubuntu in ...
There is an exact duplicate of this question here on Programmers.SE.
Yes, your understanding is correct. According to GPL, having a program run entirely on a server and accessing its output from a networked client doesn't constitute distribution (or in GPLv3 language, conveyance) to the client. Obviously this seems like a loophole given the philosophical ...
So yes, this is unambiguously redistribution.
Trichoplax suggested a number of advantages to providing binaries, but no disadvantages.
Clearly, the largest advantage to providing binaries is the high probability that this will increase the size of the user-base. The type of person who visits this site is technically very savvy, most likely with programming experience, and likely to prefer to download ...
There are several reasons to provide binaries, some stronger than others:
First a passive reason - "Why not?" : if you have any users on a given target platform, the code will need to be tested on that platform, which requires creating binaries. So you will already have the binaries.
Now active reasons:
Convenience: if you make it easier for people to use ...
No. Any modifications you apply that aren't sanctioned by the owner are classed as derivative works. Your result still contains the author's material, true, but you've changed the way it's presented - it's like removing some code that's just a wrapper for a routine. You're changing the product, which creates a derivative work, which is disallowed.
tl;dr: No ...
Running an application on a server is never considered distribution, and you're not bound by the terms of the LGPL for distribution.
The only widely used open source license which puts obligations on ...
The practice of selling exceptions to the GPL is perfectly commonplace, but you must either be the sole copyright holder, or else have prior permission from all other copyright holders. In order to achieve the latter, you must have other contributors agree to a contributor licensing agreement (CLA) that allows you, specifically, to offer that contributor's ...
I asked FSF the same question. This is the FSF's answer:
Please see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonFreeTools
I hope this is of help.
I asked again:
For example, a proprietary UNIX includes a proprietary compiler.
I can redistribute the executable of someone's LGPL program
without redistributing the proprietary compiler because ...
From GPLv3’s Definitions section (bold emphasis mine):
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
So this basic permission applies:
You may make, run and propagate covered works that ...
Then, in some way (forums, ml, etc), another entity discovers that A is developing such a feature. Is A obliged in some way to distribute that feature?
No, if someone privately modifies GPL-licensed software, the terms of the license do not require them to share their changes. The GPL requires that whenever you do choose to distribute your software (which ...
Do they have rights to do this? ("this" meaning asking for my personal info and not disclosing source code via a download link)
Generally, yes: it is not inherently problematic to require contact information nor to make users submit a request to the distributor for GPL-licensed source code. This particular implementation of GPL compliance has problems, but ...