views:

117

answers:

3

I was hoping GPLv3 would make GPLv2 easier to understand for the layman, but when I came across the phrase "propagate by procuring conveyance" what the heck is that supposed to mean!?!?

I spent a lot of quality time with a thesaurus and tried to understand this alone. Given the effort required to understand a sentence, I'm quite certain I missed a lot of content when looking at the license as a whole. To top it off I think there is a section that says SaaS vendors need to share the source code, but I can't find it.

Can anyone help decipher this insane license that is quite difficult for non-lawyers to understand?

+3  A: 

At the beginning of the GPLv3 terminology used is explained:

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

In any case, your phrase is in the section about patents. And it means if you distribute code under GPLv3 and grant for some users a patent licence, you grant this patent licence for all users of the code. propagate by procuring conveyance includes the possibility of an additional contract that is part of the transfer of a copy to a party.

GPLv3 does not put any additional requirements on SaaS Vendors. What you are talking about is the Affero GPL. It requires an SaaS provider to comply with all the requirements of the GPL not only when conveying software, put also when providing services through the software. This means if you i.e. make changes to an Afferp GPL licenced software and provide a service with this software, you have to make those changes public under the same licence, in the same way someone who distributes a GPL licenced software would have to do it.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing written here constitutes legal advice, but its sole purpose is an academic discussion about an issue of law. If anybody needs legal advice concerning their particular situation, they should consult a licenced attorney in their jurisdiction.

txwikinger
A: 

I think to really understand the GPL, you need to understand what free software really means and have a grasp of copyrights.

There is an excellent talk by Richard Stallman which is essential reading

Also, this is a good article explaining the misconception of each clause.

Kango_V
A: 

Just a side note:

You could try using the EUPL license instead of the GPL. EUPL is GPL-compatible, OSI-approved. It is much shorter and easier-to understand than the GPL, thus I use it in most of my open source projects. :)

Venemo
well, if you're going for short and easy to understand free software licenses, you can't beat the WTFPL: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
rmeador
@meador - Thanks! :)
Venemo