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

[Maximilian]

On 11/06/2015 20:47, cowan at ccil.org wrote:
> I think it would require that the recipient explicitly accept the license
> as a requirement to getting LibreOffice (or whatever), which would make
> it not Open Source.

Possibly, and I would have thought that it would require more than a
mere copyright licence could grant - I just used it as a relatively
crude hypothetical example and I'm glad the GPL doesn't work that way!


On 11/06/2015 20:47, cowan at ccil.org wrote:
>> 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.
> Almost certainly not.  Before open-source Java systems existed, the
> FSF discouraged people from writing free Java apps, but didn't deny
> that an app released under a free license was free.  See
> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.en.html>; there is no longer
> a Java trap, of course.

To be clear, I'm of the mindset that Rapid's current licence does not
require apps developed with it to themselves be licensed under an open
source licence, and I give the possiblity it being a derivative work as
just that - a possiblity. I do maintain that it's a possibility due to
the longstanding debate and uncertainty over whether dynamic linking is
sufficient to create a derivative work under the terms of the GPLv3, and
say if an app developer wanted to make an app using Rapid and release
the app solely under a proprietary licence, this is something that
developer ought to give some thought to.


On 11/06/2015 20:53, Gareth Edwards wrote:
> 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 AGPL might well be preferable to the GPL in this scenario, as (and I
quote from the AGPLv3 itself) "if you modify the Program, your modified
version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely
through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction)
an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by
providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no
charge". Therefore distribution of the program itself isn't the sole
'trigger' but also where an end-user actually uses the app then they
would have a right to the source code under the same terms.