

Ask HN: implications of using GPL'ed Ruby library inside a SAAS service ? - thibaut_barrere

I'm quite puzzled by this question - maybe someone here will be able to give a clear answer.<p>My current understanding is that I'd have to state I use the GPL library, and would have to send the library code (not the whole server code) to anyone asking (including modifications, if any).<p>Did I understand properly ?
======
DanielStraight
You can use all the GPL code you want on your server without telling or
sharing it with anyone. GPL only matters when you're redistributing a program
using GPL code.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

~~~
icey
I _think_ AGPL changes this, but I'm not sure. Frankly, GPL licensing after
version 2 is so confusing to me that I just avoid it whenever possible.

~~~
thibaut_barrere
Yay. I'm totally confused as well. I read things that tell very different
stories, and all end up with "you should ask your lawyer" (who has no clue).

Currently I just think I'm going to stay away and find an alternative, it's
just too confusing.

------
thibaut_barrere
Interesting thread on the topic:
[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/94346/can-i-legally-
incor...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/94346/can-i-legally-incorporate-
gpl-lgpl-open-sourced-software-in-a-proprietary-clo/94433#94433)

So having a hosted service with GPL2 would be ok, but GPL3 seems to be an
issue.

It also opens the question on weither a project with just "GPL" specified (not
2 or 3) automatically moves to GPL 3.

I'm not sure to understand. I'll definitely go away from the library if I
don't.

------
casualjim
it's Free as in libre not gratuit And free means that your source code has to
be available, users should be able to modify the application etc etc. But it
doesn't mean you can't charge money for it. Enterprises can't do GPL because
then their users can ask for the source code of internal applications and that
is a big no no because they could sell them to competitors etc

So I think you're correct ;)

