<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/06/2015 12:33, Gareth Edwards
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5578209A.3010707@rapid-is.co.uk" type="cite">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?
</blockquote>
<br>
Hello,<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
I had a quick look at Rapid - sounds interesting and something that
I would certainly find useful for, ahem, <i>rapid</i> development
and prototyping and for building admin interfaces for backends :)<br>
<br>
To answer your question in brief - not typically.<br>
<br>
There would be two ways of looking at the question of whether the
"apps made wth Rapid [are] also Open Source":<br>
1. the licensing terms of Rapid require app developers to release
any applications created with it under a specified licence (e.g.
GPLv3); or<br>
2. apps built on Rapid are derivative works of Rapid itself and
therefore remain within the GPLv3<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Max<br>
</body>
</html>