views:

320

answers:

2

Say my web site is based on GPL code.

AFAIK providing a service to users through a web site - even a paid service - does not violate the GPL. This is because GPL is about distribution and I haven't delivered any code. I'm providing a service and may charge for it.

However, suppose I provide an API to my web site and charge money for usage of the API.

Can one argue that in effect I've just turned my web site into a piece of sofware which I've distributed by making it a part of external software applications, thus violating the GPL?

+3  A: 

Assuming no code gets sent out to users, it's not distribution. Understand, though, that if your code has client-side JS components, and those JS components are using GPLed code, then the code must be sent either unobfuscated/unminified, or have an accompanying link to the corresponding source (unobfuscated/unminified) version.

Chris Jester-Young
A: 
  1. I'll refer you to an article discussing SaaS and GPL: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3017

  2. Get a lawyer and ask. There may be options, but you can't afford to get it wrong and the devil is truly in the details.

Basically, GPL**3** won't allow you to do what you're looking for. It's terribly counterproductive, but there it is.

hythlodayr
The article you linked to contradicts your point. :-) GPL3 does not consider delivering a SaaS app (assuming no code transfer) to be conveyance, so it's not prohibited. AGPL does require source to be available if you use AGPL code in your SaaS, however, GPL != AGPL, and the question isn't about AGPL.
Chris Jester-Young
Actually, the GPLv3 _permits_ to the licensor this kind of additional restriction. the AGPLv3 is an example of an GPLv3-compatible network-restricting license.
Massa
Sure, however, as long as the OP is careful not to use any AGPL code, then they won't get stung by this.
Chris Jester-Young
Ah, gotcha. I didn't realize AGPL was yet another distinct GPL.
hythlodayr