Hacker News Reader

Comment by t-writescode | Hacker News Reader

This having the GPL license is an interesting choice. If I understand licenses correctly (I am not a lawyer), integrating this into your code, will instantly cause your website's source code to become open source.

That seems like a non-starter for almost every major usage, to me.

View on HN

My understanding is that this is true only if you distribute your executables which most people don't do for server-side code.

IANAL. I think that your assessment is correct in the consequences but not in the letter: your source code does become GPL but if you don't distribute the binary and only use it on your servers nobody is entitled to ask you the source code. That would happen with the AGPL license.

Same thing if you make changes to Ghostly itself and don't distribute the binary. Those changes are GPL but you can keep them to you.

If you are working for customers and the IP of the software is yours but the servers are theirs, that is an act of distribution and the source code must be available. For sure customers can ask for it because binaries are distributed to them, maybe everyone else can ask it too. This is the same as GPL code on set top boxes or other devices.

If the contract states that the IP belongs to the customer, the source code is theirs but nobody else is entitled to ask for it because there is no distribution.

This is not the case for backend applications. The license you want to be aware of that does this to backend services is the AGPL. Which indeed for some is a non-starter.

Linux is under GPL. Running your website on Linux doesn't force you to open its sources.

Linux isn't compiled with your application inside it, that's why I had pause

The GPL is very clear when it states "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received."

This has nothing to do with compiling things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

> The Free Software Foundation states that, without applying the linking exception, a program linked to GPL library code may only be distributed under a GPL-compatible license. This has not been explicitly tested in court, but linking violations have resulted in settlement.

So yes, what constitutes "copies of such a program" does include how it's been compiled/linked.

FUD. Nothing wrong with GPL. GPL might "protect" the user by granting them certain rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com