Hacker News Reader

Comment by snockerton | Hacker News Reader

I should probably know this, but can anyone explain to me why other service providers like AWS don't have to release the source code of things like their brand of Xen running EC2 hypervisors?

Does it only apply if you resell / package the source code as a deliverable product? Where is this line drawn between software downloaded as a binary vs. software delivered to you in a hosted fashion with an API or similar (i.e. SaaS)?

View on HN

You can provide services all day long and you don't have to provide the source code. It's when you ship a binary that you have to provide the source to the person buying it (or technically just downloading it if you give it away).

There are gpl-like libraries for which this is not true like the Affero GPL which is not as wifely used, but for the GPL itself this statement holds true.

Amazon don't distribute any of their Xen-derived code, so they don't have to give the source out either.

This is something that the GPL version 3 tried to fix.

  > Amazon don't distribute any of their Xen-derived code, 
  > so they don't have to give the source out either.
  >
  > This is something that the GPL version 3 tried to fix.

This is something the AGPL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License) tried to fix.

and as a result it's pretty much forbidden at many places.

Well, it's never been tested, and I think that companies are not sure if it's safe to use it ever. I don't exactly know how much of the stack you have to provide the source for.

GPLv3 has to do with locking hardware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization), which Amazon is still vehemently opposed to for obvious reasons.

You can provide services all day long and you don't have to provide the source code. It's when you ship a binary that you have to provide the source to the person buying it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com