GPL issue at my work place
Mahesh T. Pai
paivakil at yahoo.co.in
Sat Jan 19 16:19:40 UTC 2008
Matthew Flaschen said on Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:30:17PM -0500,:
> > The conclusion FSF wants
>> to arrive at is that hosting the site on the CMS amounts to
>> distribution of the CMS; but the copyright in the contents held by the
>> CMS are still owned by you.
> That's not true. Providing a CMS SaaS platform is /not/ distribution of the
> CMS, and is not covered by the GPL; the FSF has explicitly agreed with this.
> The GNU Affero GPL is an entirely different issue, and distribution
> probably would be required under it.
Yes; thanks for pointing this out.
And on re-reading what I wrote in the immediately preceding sentence -
... (out put of a content management system, for example), is not
copyrightable, but the application itself it.
I intended to say - "output of a CMS is not capable of being
restricted by the license of the CMS"; and not that such output "is
not copyrightable". And the hopefully obvious typo - the last word
ought to be "is"; not "it".
After rereading the stand by Dirk's employer's legal department, I
suspect that they are failing to distinguish between output of a
program and / or "use of software". The "viral" nature of the GPL
applies only to modification and / or distribution of GPL'ed
software. If you are using / writing / creating software which works
with GPL'ed software, the GPL does not apply to your creations because
your work functions and has existence independent of GPLed
software. (hmm.. is anybody reminded of the interminable kernel module
Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/
More information about the License-discuss