[License-discuss] Is what's made with Open Source, Open Source?

[Gareth Edwards]

Hey many thanks Max,

This is all really helpful - as you can imagine I'm trying to understand 
this as fully as I can...

Over on my Reddit post (http://redd.it/39gpcy) there's a reply that as 
Rapid is a server platform it doesn't get distributed like a typical 
desktop application so GPLv3 doesn't apply, and AGPLv3 should be used 
instead. Giving AGPL a quick read this makes sense to me, but not having 
heard of it before I wondered whether AGPL was sound and/or a better choice?

The Open Office document is a good example: I write an essay in Open 
Office and is the essay Open Source? Of course not, the words in the 
text are all my own. However the font is not, and, erm, neither are the 
other "building blocks" which Open Office is using to show me my essay. 
The essay can exist entirely independently of Open Office, and I can do 
things like print it, and still have what makes my essay, my essay, and 
retain it after it's creation without any further requirement for Open 
Office.

And this is where Rapid apps get tricky. The debate (I think) is can a 
Rapid app exist, like my essay, independently of the Rapid platform used 
to make it? (like FileZilla can exist outside of the mysys compiler) And 
the answer is, no it can't. What users generate with Rapid are just 
definition files of properties and what Rapid controls (html snippets) 
are on pages and what Rapid actions (JavaScript and pre-compiled 
server-side code) get called when. The app has to constantly refer back 
to the platform resources to generate the pages and execute the actions. 
I assume this is linking, or even derivation? Is it enough to ensure 
Rapid apps are Open Source?

Not that ensuring Rapid apps are Open Source is necessarily the end goal 
- I just need to be sure if it's yay or nay.

Isn't software interesting?

Thanks for your time and help so far.

Best regards,

Gareth


Gareth Edwards

*Rapid Information Systems Ltd.***

*http://www.rapid-is.co.uk*

gareth.edwards at rapid-is.co.uk <mailto:gareth.edwards at rapid-is.co.uk>

Office : 02081239508

Mobile : 07818830430


On 11/06/15 19:36, Maximilian wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 12:33, Gareth Edwards wrote:
>> The big thing everyone wants to know (and no-one seems to be able to 
>> answer), is are the apps made with Rapid also Open Source, i.e. are 
>> app creators obliged to share the code and files for apps they've 
>> made using Rapid with the rest of the Rapid community? 
>
> Hello,
>
> This post might seem a bit long - I'm just throwing a few ideas up 
> into the air here with the usual disclaimers and hoping others will 
> comment and correct me where I'm wrong.
>
> I had a quick look at Rapid - sounds interesting and something that I 
> would certainly find useful for, ahem, /rapid/ development and 
> prototyping and for building admin interfaces for backends :)
>
> To answer your question in brief - not typically.
>
> There would be two ways of looking at the question of whether the 
> "apps made wth Rapid [are] also Open Source":
> 1.    the licensing terms of Rapid require app developers to release 
> any applications created with it under a specified licence (e.g. 
> GPLv3); or
> 2.    apps built on Rapid are derivative works of Rapid itself and 
> therefore remain within the GPLv3
>
> Regarding point one, the GPLv3 doesn't allow for this. If it did, for 
> example, documents made with LibreOffice would themselves be licensed 
> under the GPLv3. Technically I think it would be possible for such a 
> licence to still be compatible with the Open Source Definition, 
> although I can't name a licence like that off the top of my head.
>
> With respect to point two, you'd need to show that the apps built 
> using Rapid are actually derived works. From the viewpoint of the Free 
> Software Foundation, they would probably see that as the apps are 
> completely dependent on Rapid, perhaps moreso than a software library, 
> the apps would therefore form "derivative works" and be licensed under 
> the GPL. I don't know how successful that argument would be in court, 
> and especially here as the apps are not seen as modifications or 
> improvements to Rapid but instead apps in their own right which are 
> merely interpreted by/linked to Rapid.
>
> Another thing to note is that the GPL only really takes effect on 
> distribution or propagation of software. Therefore, even if apps were 
> somehow required to be licensed under the GPLv3 or were otherwise 
> considered derivative works, app creators wouldn't actually be obliged 
> to share the code and files with others where they were merely 
> developing the apps for their own use. It's only where the developer 
> wants to give (or make available) the app to other people/entities 
> where that developer would be required to release the source code for 
> that app.
>
>
> TL;DR - if you really want to make sure that the apps created with 
> Rapid are themselves open source then you'd probably want some form of 
> custom OSD-compatible software licence.
>
>
> Regards,
> Max

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150611/bad30737/attachment.html>