The FSF has never enforced the GPL. In most instances, the FSF is not a party to the license agreement, and the agreement can only be enforced by the developers who are the authors of a program. The FSF is only able to enforce the GPL when it is a FSF project where the authors are required to assign the copyrights to FSF.
The FSF in January 2006 released a first discussion draft of version 3 of the GPL (GPL3) which is the first draft since version 2 of the GPL (GPL2) in 1991. Topics of debate in the GPL3 include the effect of combining GPL and non-GPL software, intercompany transfers within a consolidated entity such as transfers between subsidiaries, transfer of software to outsourced service providers, and backend software used to provide services through a web interface.
Under the GPL2, the program may be used internally. It is possible to modify the program and not have to reveal the modifications if they are only used internally and not distributed. However, once the program is distributed, it must include a notice during the program execution indicating that the GPL2 applies. The FSF seems to take the position that intercompany transfers do not constitute distribution.
The GPL3 does not address webhosted services or independent contractor use. The FSF current FAQ seems to take the position that webhosted services constitute distribution, and having an independent contractor use software on an organization’s behalf offside constitutes distribution. This is contrary to United States copyright laws where the foregoing two situations would not constitute distribution.
The GPL3 clarifies the meaning of aggregation. Under the GPL2, aggregation of non-GPL software with GPL software does not subject the non-GPL code to the GPL2. The GPL3 states that aggregation is a compilation of GPL software with other works which are not by their nature extensions of the GPL code. The GPL3 does not apply the non-GPL software included in an aggregation.
.jpg)
Comment Preview