Blackduck Software and IP

[jkinz at kinz.org]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:22:47AM -0500, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> > Jeff Macdonald writes:
> >> But, as I said before, we don't distribute any code.
> ..........
> I guess this could be ignorance on my part, but it was my
> understanding that at least with the GPL, one could do whatever they
> want with the code. But if the code was later distributed, one had to
> abide by the additional terms of the GPL.
> ........
> Now you are confusing me, is it relevant or not? :)
> 
> Either way I need to do some re-reading.

The goal of the GPL is to have people share any changes they make
to GPL's code. (stating the obvious in crude and simple terms)

In GPL 2 - you only had to share your changes if you
distributed the code  (source or resulting binaries/executables).

As of GPL 3 - hmm - haven't read it enough yet. 

It seems clear that rms wants to include "web services" as "code
distribution' as well. When that will be covered and by which
version of the GPL, is something I don't know, but it seems clear
that eventually anytime you "sell" or "share" a product with a
user base outside your own company, by any means the GPL will
require change sharing. [note the "eventually"]

"by any means" would include a web application or cloud computing
or anything of that nature where the user is "using your code"
even if it is not running on their machine, but one of your
servers (or even a cloud of donated cpu cycles). 

This is all speculation but the direction that web based apps and
services are headed clearly require rms to include them as forms
of "distributing code" to meet his goals.  Whether a license can 
do that legally will only be decided by courts.. someday..
maybe..  :-)

Jeff Kinz