Scope of application of the GPL agreement

This article is reproduced to http://www.javaeye.com/topic/188442 by Robbin greatly published

The server operating system that Google runs is its own modified Linux, and Linux uses the GPLV2 protocol. As you understand it, Google has the obligation to provide their server operating system source code to every Internet user using Google's search service. But I can guarantee that you go to Google to get their operating system source code, Google is absolutely not to you.

The so-called open source of the agreement, refers to the distribution case of open source, that is, when you distribute outside the need for open source. For example, you use Ext, and then you modify the Ext source code, and then the revised source of the code to distribute out, at this time you must to your distributor open source. But if you don't have the source code, then you don't need to open source, no matter how you use it. So you have to run your own web site using ext, and modify the source code, you do not have any obligation to provide this code to anyone.

I think it would be wise to understand the GPL agreement, and it would be helpful to understand the stories that Richard Stallman behind the GNU, which would be a great help in understanding the GPL. The simple version of the story is that when Stallman was at MIT, the lab had a Xerox printer, but there was a problem with his network driver, so stallman every time he printed the document he had to run to the computer next to the printer to print it, and not to print directly from upstairs through his own computer. Since Xerox's earlier printer provided the driver source code, Stallman modified the driver itself to solve the problem. Later Xerox's new printer no longer provides drivers, so Stallman has no choice but to modify the driver according to its own needs. Because of this thing, let Stallman feel, software vendors in the distribution of binary software should carry the source code, to the distribution of users to modify the source code of their own freedom.

From this story, and delving into the GPL and other open source agreement text can be seen, the scope of the agreement is "distribution" , if you do not distribute the behavior, of course, there is no need for open source. Otherwise I downloaded the Linux source code, if you want to find me, I have to do this graffiti to you do not have to do it. That's fool.

The exact point is that you distribute the software (which can be paid for distribution) to whom you have to supply the source code together. Please note that you do not have to be open to the world, you only have the obligation to disclose to the Distributor.

For the distributor who gets the software, he has a binary version, there is also the source code version, when the situation is different: if he wants to distribute the binary version is illegal, must have your authorization to do, but he can distribute the source code version to anyone, without the need for your authorization. So if the distributor has to make the source code public to the whole world, you have no right to stop him.

Q:web, server-side transfer to the client is also the distribution of the action?

A: This is not called distribution, this is called use. Unless you provide the download of the software on the website, provide the public download, this is called distribution.

But then again, JS this kind of thing has no way to protect the source code, you adopt not adopt GPLV3 agreement is irrelevant, people want to see also see at any time.