Using custom versions of GNU/GPL web applications as a subscription fee commercial model

Question

If i take a web application which is subject to GNU/GPL license and modify it in-house and then use it as a subscription fee business model, for eg. user pays for service and web content and not for the software itself, thus i am not distributing the software itself, is my custom version of the software be subject to the GNU/GPL terms of redistributing the source and the same terms or not?

To give more in-depth to the issue, let's take for eg. a web game licensed under GNU/GPL. If i take it and modify it and add content and custom gameplay and such to it and then host the game with a subscription fee or free but with in-game purchase model. In this case the user will pay for the service itself of using the online service/server and gameplay/content. Will my custom game infringe the GNU/GPL license model of the original source and be required to release the modified source under the same terms?

As for the subscription based business model for charging for services and not for the software itself, i know that it is not infringing the GNU/GPL model, thus totally possible, unless someone contradicts me? Thus i am more interested in source code releasing part of the issue.

Answer 1

Commercial use does not infringe upon the GPL in any way. Additionally, web-based services are not required to make available any derivatives of GPL or LGPL code; only derivatives to AGPL code used in web-based services must be released.

Answer 2

Let's look at each type of content:

Flash, since it was mentioned: it appears that the binary would be distributed, hence your modified source would have to be released under the GPL.

client side Javascript: the use case would appear to include distribution, so any code would need to be released under the GPL. Obviously the code is being sent to the web browser anyway so it is available, but you could obfuscate the code being sent to the web browser, in which case the GPL obligates you to distribute the non-obfuscated versions.

php: not being distributed, so source does not need to be made available

server side javascript: (not common, but to avoid confusion worth clarifying) not being distributed, so source does not need to be made available

html & css: I think these would fall under the GPL and you would need to make the "source form" available as you are distributing them.

Note that the AGPL is really/originally targeted to force people to release the source in the PHP and similar cases, where there is substantial server side source code that people would otherwise not have to release (called the "software-as-a-service" case).

Answer 3

Stepping back a few feet, it appears obvious that you are attempting to stay just inside the boundaries of the letter of the license, while ignoring completely, even tearing to shreds, the spirit and intent of the license.

This is a Bad Thing. You will spend a lot of time and effort on attorneys, to make certain that you are just inside the limit, you will have to allow a significant capital reserve for lawsuit risk, in case someone else finds a way to construe the letter of the license that puts you on the wrong side of the line, and you will be CONTROLLED by the attorneys in your efforts to stay (just) (barely) legal.

This is also very bad for your karma.

Why not spend the extra effort, write your OWN game, and license it however you wish? I realize this is more work, but the items outlined in my second paragraph then all become a whole lot less major, and you don't collect the black smudges on your karma.