SPL/GPLv3, hosting, & source code?

[chuangk]

Hi, quick question about hosting sugarcrm and source code:

Am I allowed to host (rent or provide an on-demand service) modified versions of SugarCRM without making available the modified work source code under SPL; under GPL v3?

According to the FAQ on http://www.sugarforge.org/content/fa....php#partner30, the answer is YES under GPL v3; however, according to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, the answer seems to be NO.

Can someone please confirm for SPL and GPL v3?

THANKS!

[ruchida]

You don't need to make source codes available under SPL, but under GPLv3, you need to make them available.

[chuangk]

Thank you for the clarification!

Maybe it would be good for Sugar to correct the FAQ at http://www.sugarforge.org/content/f...3.php#partner30 ?

[susiewilliams]

Hi all,

Please check out the GPL FAQ on this topic, located here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods

My take on this is that if you host a modified edition that is available to the public, you must make the source code available; if you host it privately (i.e.- for one customer) then you do not need to make the modified code available.

[ruchida]

Susie,

Thanks for the follow-up on this. This is a very important question and an answer in the 21st century.

The GNU GPL FAQ you're referring to is based on GPLv2 but GPLv3 explains this in more detail in the section 6.d).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

[andydreisch]

Hi ruchida, yes, we're referencing the FAQs noted on GNU GPL version 3 main page. And the FAQs themselves denote v3-specifc topics.

You reference an alternative path for which you can access the very same FAQs (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) and which displays the very same v3 license.

So ... we end up in the same place with a different starting point -- a starting point which displays the same GPLv3 terms and which reference the same FAQs.

Do you agree with this assessment? Is there in your opinion a change we need to make to our FAQ references?

Just making double, triple, quadruple sure.

Thanks,

Andy

[ruchida]

Andy,
Yes, I agree, off course. I wanted to make this specific question & answer very clear because this is the section which many open source companies have put their efforts on.

[andydreisch]

Hi ruchida, thanks. I just wanted to address the point you made earlier when you said "The GNU GPL FAQ you're referring to is based on GPLv2 ...".

In fact, we are referencing the most current (v3) FAQs.

As to the original question I believe our FAQs are still correct but I'm going to re-evaluate it just to make sure.

Andy

[ruchida]

Hi Andy,

We are looking at the same FAQ, but the FAQ is not up to date unfortunately. It should be revised to convey the correct concept of GPL v3.

[susiewilliams]

Hi all,

Here's a brief recap and update on this issue:

The question was- "Am I allowed to host (rent or provide an on-demand service) modified versions of SugarCRM without making available the modified work source under GPLv3?"

The answer- You do not have to share (make available) the modifications as long as you don't redistribute the code. In other words, if you make the modifications for one customer, then host the modified work so that only that one customer can access it, then you don't need to make the modifications available. If you make a customized version of the code and redistribute it to customers (plural), you must make the work available.

So, we believe that the FAQs on our website stand as-is and are correct.

The above info is our understanding and is based on our interpretation of GPLv3. As always, consult your own legal counsel if you have any questions or concerns.