Ottavio Campana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scenario: a software house develops a web application based on GPL
> software. It doesn't sell the application to customers, it sells the
> access to the application, which is installed, run and is maintained
> on the software house's server.
I understand the general consensus on cases like this to be that the
software house is not deemed to be, in the terms of the GPL v2,
"distributing" the software to the customers, so they don't receive
the software and have no license to it.
It's this situation (the "Application Service Provider loophole") that
the Affero GPL was intended to cover, and the current draft of the GPL
v3 now defines the term "propagate" that includes "making available to
the public".
<URL:http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html>
--
\ "Tis more blessed to give than to receive; for example, wedding |
`\ presents." -- Henry L. Mencken |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
