Ubuntu Forums = proprietary software

[BWF89]

So I was on Wikipedia reading the comparison of web forums. When I found out that the software that powers vBulletin messageboards is proprietary!


NAME= vBulletin
CREATOR=Jelsoft Enterprises
FIRST PUBLIC RELEASE DATE= ?
CURRENT STABLE VERSION=3.0.7 PHP
COST= $85 p.a. / $160 lifetime
LICENSE= Proprietary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

[Ride Jib]

I think everyone knows vBulletin is proprietary.

.... I think I'm just missing your point...

[MetalMusicAddict]

So? I say use the best software for the job. ;)

[Ride Jib]

So? I say use the best software for the job. ;)

Exaclty. And $160 isn't exactly bank-breaking. Unfortunately, all of the OSS forums (at least of the many I have seen) are no where near as intricate and sophisticated as vBulletin.

[BWF89]

It's an oxymoron (or whatever the word I'm thinking of is) when Ubuntu won't even include simple apps like Flash as an OPTIONAL package in the install because it's dev team believes in the ideals of free software but it uses proprietary software for the it's official messageboard.

[WildTangent]

PHPBB is free, and its packed with features

-Wild

[ecadre]

It's an oxymoron (or whatever the word I'm thinking of is) when Ubuntu won't even include simple apps like Flash as an OPTIONAL package in the install because it's dev team believes in the ideals of free software but it uses proprietary software for the it's official messageboard.

Indeed, it is a bit peculiar since there are free alternatives.

Any explanations?

[Lowe]

phpbb is NOT packed with features, you need to hack away at it just to get it to be able to do basic stuff like adding attachments to posts. Not to mention the security of phpbb is very poor. It doesn't really matter if it's Proprietary, were not all rms fans around here you know.

[BWF89]

phpbb is NOT packed with features, you need to hack away at it just to get it to be able to do basic stuff like adding attachments to posts.
Who adds attachments to posts anyway? I always just upload my pictures I want to post to Photobucket and use the [IMG] tags.

[kassetra]

This question has been asked and *answered* numerous times.

We use the software we use simply because there is no other software, open/free/etc. or not that has all of the features we have to have.

I'm sure you've all seen that our mailing lists are integrated into the forums.
We have many, many other features similar - only available in the software we are using.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=115556&postcount=22

It's not peculiar that we use the forum software we are using, and no there are not free alternatives because of the items that we need.

*Edit: please note that we do *not* have to provide an *explanation* to the software we are using, but we have given you an insight into the reasoning behind our choice.

*Edit2: azz has some interesting thoughts about this topic as well: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=115643&postcount=23

[JPatrick]

I've always prefered phpBB - hacking is easy.

[aysiu]

It's an oxymoron (or whatever the word I'm thinking of is) when Ubuntu won't even include simple apps like Flash as an OPTIONAL package in the install because it's dev team believes in the ideals of free software but it uses proprietary software for the it's official messageboard. It's not because the dev teams believes in the ideals of open source software. It's because one of the missions of Ubuntu is to always be free of charge, and they can't do that if they include media codecs. Am I wrong?

[kassetra]

It's an oxymoron (or whatever the word I'm thinking of is) when Ubuntu won't even include simple apps like Flash as an OPTIONAL package in the install because it's dev team believes in the ideals of free software but it uses proprietary software for the it's official messageboard.

A quick definition for you: simply because we paid for the software doesn't make it proprietary. We are using a piece of software created using a standard language, without any "proprietary" enhancements. Yes, we are running software that is "closed" per se, (not that we can't hack up the code until the cows come home because the product is the code,) but it is not proprietary.

1. The forum software and the Ubuntu installation are two completely different topics.
2. Media Codecs and other media related items are a legal matter for a distribution.
3. Our choice in software has absolutely nothing to do with the Ubuntu developers. We are a completely separate entity.

*Note: if you check other linux-based forums, most notably, fedora forums, you will see that many of us are running the same forum software.

[sas]

I've always prefered phpBB - hacking is easy.
yes, exactly.

[ecadre]

*Edit: please note that we do *not* have to provide an *explanation* to the software we are using, but we have given you an insight into the reasoning behind our choice.]

Is this a pop at me? Yes, of course it is. However, I didn't DEMAND an explanation I simply asked whether there was one. You gave your explanation and then decided to have a go for me asking in the first place. hmmmm.

Well, even after your insight into the reasoning, I still find it peculiar (ironic at least) that a website that proudly proclaims on it's home page


The Ubuntu community is built on the ideas enshrined in the Ubuntu Manifesto: that software should be available free of charge, that software tools should be usable by people in their local language and despite any disabilities, and that people should have the freedom to customise and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.

then uses proprietary, non-free in every way, software for it's bulletin board.


A quick definition for you: simply because we paid for the software doesn't make it proprietary. We are using a piece of software created using a standard language, without any "proprietary" enhancements. Yes, we are running software that is "closed" per se, (not that we can't hack up the code until the cows come home because the product is the code,) but it is not proprietary.

Sorry, but vBulletin is proprietary. Here are the terms that vBulletin give you for paying for their software.

For $160 you get


vBulletin (Owned License)
The owned vBulletin Forum license allows you to run the software on your site indefinitely. Along with this license, you will receive one year of free updates. Beyond the first year, you will have to pay a nominal fee, currently $30, to obtain updates for an additional year.

This license includes free email and forum support.

For $85 you get:


vBulletin (Leased License)
The leased vBulletin Forum license allows you to use the software on your site for 1 year and gives you access to products updates for that year. After 1 year, you must renew your license or remove the software from your site.

This license includes free email and forum support.

Faq about licensing here: http://www.vbulletin.com/faqsales.php
Copy of the license here: http://www.vbulletin.com/order/license_agreement.php

These are proprietary licenses. Not question about it. If you want to use proprietary software, it's up to you. Just admit it, it's that simple. Trying to pretend that vBulletin isn't proprietary just looks silly.


1. The forum software and the Ubuntu installation are two completely different topics.
2. Media Codecs and other media related items are a legal matter for a distribution.
3. Our choice in software has absolutely nothing to do with the Ubuntu developers. We are a completely separate entity.

The statemet on the Ubuntu home page (quoted above) refers to the Ubuntu community, not the developers. Therefore, to comment about the proprietary nature of the bulletin boards is legitimate.


*Note: if you check other linux-based forums, most notably, fedora forums, you will see that many of us are running the same forum software.

Some do (some don't, yes I looked, the Gentoo forums are of one many that use phpBB), but this doesn't mean that you have to too. If someone jumped in front of a moving bus would you always follow shouting "me too"?

OK, this may be sounding "extreme", and you're probably thinking of branding me as some sort of zealot (oh, if only there were more!). The point I'm going to make is that you should not try to deny what has been done. Please don't wriggle about the question, be straightforward and amend that statement on the front page.

Now people may think I'm whining and ungrateful. No, I use Kubuntu and am very happy (grateful even) and I think that Ubuntu, Canonical, Mark Shuttleworth etc are very cool :grin: However, I don't intend to leave my critical faculties at the door when I enter this community.

[TravisNewman]

"Please don't wriggle about the question, be straightforward and amend that statement on the front page."

WHICH front page? We have no control over ubuntu.com, or ubuntulinux.org, or any subdomains.

[kassetra]

You gave your explanation and then decided to have a go for me asking in the first place. hmmmm.No, it wasn't. You're reading way too much personally into what I said.


Well, even after your insight into the reasoning, I still find it peculiar (ironic at least) that a website that proudly proclaims on it's home pageNo. That is the Ubuntu website. We are not Ubuntu. We are the Ubuntu Forums. Our front page proclaims nothing on the front page, other than where we are as far as donations are concerned. If you wish to make a statement about the FORUM website of something, use the forum website as a reference, not the Ubuntu website.


then uses proprietary, non-free in every way, software for it's bulletin board. Sorry, but vBulletin is proprietary. Here are the terms that vBulletin give you for paying for their software.Again, we are not the Ubuntu website.

[from the dictionary] Proprietary, definition: Private. With regard to hardware and software, it implies that it was developed by and is currently owned by one organization or individual.

The software itself is not proprietary, because it is not just developed or owned, as you have shown by the licensing, by one organization or individual.

If you mean that the *license* is proprietary, you are correct.


For $160 you get
For $85 you get:
Faq about licensing here: http://www.vbulletin.com/faqsales.php
Copy of the license here: http://www.vbulletin.com/order/license_agreement.php

These are proprietary licenses. Not question about it. If you want to use proprietary software, it's up to you. As I have said before, yes, the license is one that they own, and is not one of the common GPL licenses. But the software that you receive after making a payment is not proprietary, please do not confuse the two. Also, there is nothing wrong with paying for software.



The statemet on the Ubuntu home page (quoted above) refers to the Ubuntu community, not the developers. Therefore, to comment about the proprietary nature of the bulletin boards is legitimate.See second response above.


Some do (some don't, yes I looked, the Gentoo forums are of one many that use phpBB), but this doesn't mean that you have to too. If someone jumped in front of a moving bus would you always follow shouting "me too"?
The point I'm going to make is that you should not try to deny what has been done. Please don't wriggle about the question, be straightforward and amend that statement on the front page. However, I don't intend to leave my critical faculties at the door when I enter this community.1. We use the software that best fits our needs. Period. The software we are currently using best fits those needs.
2. *Our* front page *does not* say what you are referring to. Also, simply because the *forum* is using software that you do not think fits the definition that the official page uses does not require them to make any changes to their site.
3. You need to distinguish the *forum* from the *official distribution site*, because we are separate entities.

[Leif]

While we are on the topic, I've been meaning to ask that people stop using avatars made using non-free software. Some of them have clearly been made using evil Adobe products, and are in violation of our buzz here.

Heaven forbid we should use the best tool for the job, or have choice or somesuch.

[TravisNewman]

*lol*

Way to lighten the mood Leif ;)

As I've pointed out in other areas, the source code for the linux kernel itself was kept in a proprietary versioning and organization system, Bitkeeper, until the latest version of the kernel.

RMS himself (if you don't know who he is you really should before you start complaining about proprietary software) has said himself that if no viable alternative exists in the Open Source/Free Software world, that proprietary software is ok. Know of any forum that can incorporate a gallery, blogs, email listserv integration, functional attachments, etc, etc, without pulling your hair out over all the work going into it? I only know of one, and that's the one we're using.

I'm not upset over the concern-- I totally understand it. But considering what we have to do with the forums, considering what Richard Stallman (RMS) has said-- and he's the biggest OSS zealot there is-- I really don't think this is an issue. It's not closed source software even-- you see all the code and can modify it, you just can't redistribute it. It IS a proprietary license, but with the points I've made above, this is a non-issue.

[sapo]

PHPBB is free, and its packed with features

-Wild

Why features.. and has more holes than a cheese :grin:

[TravisNewman]

couldn't agree more. phpBB is bad business. And it's not PACKED with features, but you can definitely add more, and it's not that hard, but the security holes are massive.

[kassetra]

While we are on the topic, I've been meaning to ask that people stop using avatars made using non-free software. Some of them have clearly been made using evil Adobe products, and are in violation of our buzz here.

Heaven forbid we should use the best tool for the job, or have choice or somesuch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wait wait! My BIOS is non-free! I don't have access to any source code either! I must now trash my BIOS! (Bad joke about RMS writing his own BIOS here.)

In a perfect world, all the software / applications would fulfill all of our needs and be completely open. I would love to see that, but, unfortunately, that wonderful world doesn't exist yet, so we make do.

[XDevHald]

Wow, this whole phpbb thing and forum general forum chat is totally off charts, but hey, that's what's good about having different people in the world.

Oh by the way Leif, I agree, but who the hell is going to stop them? *lol*

[poptones]

Wait wait! My BIOS is non-free! I don't have access to any source code either! I must now trash my BIOS! (Bad joke about RMS writing his own BIOS here.)

We'll have to see how funny you find the notion once motherboard manufacturers start shipping only TCPA enabled motherboards... that only run windows.

[TravisNewman]

Wait wait! My BIOS is non-free! I don't have access to any source code either! I must now trash my BIOS! (Bad joke about RMS writing his own BIOS here.)

We'll have to see how funny you find the notion once motherboard manufacturers start shipping only TCPA enabled motherboards... that only run windows.
That's when Linux will develop into it's own platform, or at least a different i386 platform... You know that some will still develop non TCPA hardware. At least I hope.

but that's off-topic ;)

[XDevHald]

::Bump::
Sorry moving along with this topic.
-----------------------------------------------------

I don't like phpbb, and yes hacking it to your likings is fun but also has it's concerns as well when it comes to coding it. It's a sloppy job to do but somebody has to do it, "Well not Ubuntu Forums Staff".

If at all means, never were the intentions of the admins thoughts to make this a phpbb community, and thank you for not doing so as it's sloppy and uneditably horrific in it's own meanings. (Shivers with filth of thinking about it) :D

[TravisNewman]

You'd be terrified if you knew what we were using for the first couple of weeks, before I ever even joined up.

Hint: it was phpBB ;)

From reading the posts about it when I got here, it was not working like it needed to AT ALL for what the moderators/admin at the time wanted to do. And I can attest to that. phpBB isn't very resilient.

[crane]

Why features.. and has more holes than a cheese :grin:


mmmmmm cheese!

[ecadre]

Ah well, I thought that there may be some understanding here of what non-free software is. Are you trying to say that it's a non-free license but free software? My, my, that's a new one on me.

Like I said, use whatever board you like, but try to be up-front about what you're doing. All this guff and wriggling is daft.

Also, this board has got nothing to do with Ubuntu? Well, that's another one I didn't see coming. It's surprising that I should have missed it considering you use exactly the same site design (elements, layout, colours etc etc), there are direct links from the Ubuntu website which make no indication that these boards are unconnected to Ubuntu, your "code of conduct" is placed on the Ubuntu website and there is no indication anywhere on the forums that these are not the official Ubuntu forums.

You know what, maybe I should have read the line at the bottom of every page on this site where it states "Official Ubuntu Forums". Maybe this would have informed me that you have no connection with Ubuntu.

So are you an Official Ubuntu forum site upholding the philosophy and manifesto of Ubuntu, or are you completely unconnected? Or do you just say what's convenient for you at the time?

This has been a strange argument to get into, but some of the stuff in the answers that have been given is really rather bizarre.

Sure, Stallman has given all us mere mortals dispensation to use non-free software where we can find no alternative. OK, fair enough.

All I observed, originally, was that it was a bit peculiar for the Ubuntu forums to be using non-free software. I didn't expect to get my head bitten off, be told it was in no way peculiar, that the self-evidently non-free software wasn't non-free and that these forums had no connection with Ubuntu anyway.

There you go, you live and learn I suppose.

[TravisNewman]

"Ah well, I thought that there may be some understanding here of what non-free software is. Are you trying to say that it's a non-free license but free software? My, my, that's a new one on me."

Not exactly. Kass is saying that non-free doesn't necessarily mean proprietary. It's fishy, yes, but proprietary means that it's closed off, which this isn't. I understand your confusion there.

"Like I said, use whatever board you like, but try to be up-front about what you're doing. All this guff and wriggling is daft."

And we are. For the sake of argument lets call it proprietary. Still, it's all that could fit the job.

"Also, this board has got nothing to do with Ubuntu? Well, that's another one I didn't see coming. It's surprising that I should have missed it considering you use exactly the same site design (elements, layout, colours etc etc), there are direct links from the Ubuntu website which make no indication that these boards are unconnected to Ubuntu, your "code of conduct" is placed on the Ubuntu website and there is no indication anywhere on the forums that these are not the official Ubuntu forums."

These are the official forums, but the administration and mod team have control over what's done here. We're affiliated and associated with Ubuntu, but not a full on PART of it all, if that makes sense.

"You know what, maybe I should have read the line at the bottom of every page on this site where it states "Official Ubuntu Forums". Maybe this would have informed me that you have no connection with Ubuntu."

See above.

"So are you an Official Ubuntu forum site upholding the philosophy and manifesto of Ubuntu, or are you completely unconnected? Or do you just say what's convenient for you at the time?"

Official forum, but still unconnected in a sense. We're working to close the gap between the two sections of the community though.

"This has been a strange argument to get into, but some of the stuff in the answers that have been given is really rather bizarre."

Agreed, it can be confusing :)

"Sure, Stallman has given all us mere mortals dispensation to use non-free software where we can find no alternative. OK, fair enough."

And that's the entire point I was personally trying to make, because I think it fits.

"All I observed, originally, was that it was a bit peculiar for the Ubuntu forums to be using non-free software. I didn't expect to get my head bitten off, be told it was in no way peculiar, that the self-evidently non-free software wasn't non-free and that these forums had no connection with Ubuntu anyway."

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I apologize if you feel you had your head bitten off, and I hope the bills to replace your head aren't expensive :) It IS peculiar, the way it's all set up, but as I've said, we're trying to close the gap. Vbulletin IS non-free, just not proprietary, as kassetra interprets it. Dictionary.com paints a different picture, but she may have gotten her definition from a more IT related source. I think proprietary involves more privacy of how things work, so that rules out anything in web programming. Regardless, call it what you want, but you have to pay for it, you can't redistribute it, you can only modify it if you again don't redistribute, but the source is totally visible and editable (if that's even a word), because that's essentially all web programming is.

[poptones]

Regardless, call it what you want, but you have to pay for it, you can't redistribute it, you can only modify it if you again don't redistribute, but the source is totally visible and editable (if that's even a word), because that's essentially all web programming is.

My first real exposure to unix systems (actually they were mostly SGI IRIX systems) was using Wavefront on the campus network. It was several thousand a seat (I heard like $60K a year) and the software was completely owned by the Wavefront folks. But because it was made to run on unix systems it was also in source code form. Does that mean Wavefront wasn't "proprietary?" It sure wasn't "open."

Having access to the source doesn't mean it's not proprietary. If that was all it took then windows also could not be called "proprietary" because Microsoft also allows "select partners" access to the source code.

I understand needing to get the job done and I remember what this place was like on phpbb. I also used to linger at ars technica and I am pretty sure they were on phpbb and the board used to be screwed up on a pretty regular basis. But there is at least a bit of validity in the point originally raised: by using proprietary software for this forum those "useless" open source bbs systems are not getting developed. If ubuntu were to employ one of those instead of a proprietary system then the improvements to that code could be contributed back into the system.

I would also like to point out that actions speak louder than words. Anyone who is so offended that this forum is essentially forced into using proprietary software because no better alternatives exist would have a much more compelling argument if they were, say, in the process of developing a better alternative and the folks running this place were simply not receptive to their offer of a better, completely open source, solution.

[TravisNewman]

"If ubuntu were to employ one of those instead of a proprietary system then the improvements to that code could be contributed back into the system."

True, but as has been stated before, we're affiliated but separated from the rest of the community. Ubuntu devs and Canonical employees are a rare breed around here. The people in the admin/mod team aren't "ubuntu" in the sense you're describing, and most of us don't have the technical expertise to make improvements or to make our own CMS/forum framework. Ubuntu doesn't even pay the bills for the forums servers, we're all on our own there.

"I would also like to point out that actions speak louder than words. Anyone who is so offended that this forum is essentially forced into using proprietary software because no better alternatives exist would have a much more compelling argument if they were, say, in the process of developing a better alternative and the folks running this place were simply not receptive to their offer of a better, completely open source, solution."

<3
Well put

[ecadre]

Regardless, call it what you want, but you have to pay for it, you can't redistribute it, you can only modify it if you again don't redistribute, but the source is totally visible and editable (if that's even a word), because that's essentially all web programming is.

My first real exposure to unix systems (actually they were mostly SGI IRIX systems) was using Wavefront on the campus network. It was several thousand a seat (I heard like $60K a year) and the software was completely owned by the Wavefront folks. But because it was made to run on unix systems it was also in source code form. Does that mean Wavefront wasn't "proprietary?" It sure wasn't "open."

Having access to the source doesn't mean it's not proprietary. If that was all it took then windows also could not be called "proprietary" because Microsoft also allows "select partners" access to the source code.

I understand needing to get the job done and I remember what this place was like on phpbb. I also used to linger at ars technica and I am pretty sure they were on phpbb and the board used to be screwed up on a pretty regular basis. But there is at least a bit of validity in the point originally raised: by using proprietary software for this forum those "useless" open source bbs systems are not getting developed. If ubuntu were to employ one of those instead of a proprietary system then the improvements to that code could be contributed back into the system.

I would also like to point out that actions speak louder than words. Anyone who is so offended that this forum is essentially forced into using proprietary software because no better alternatives exist would have a much more compelling argument if they were, say, in the process of developing a better alternative and the folks running this place were simply not receptive to their offer of a better, completely open source, solution.

Some good points, maybe a bit idealistic but maybe we should try to give ourselves high standards.

Your last point, though, is one I have great problems with.

I am, and have been involved in different open software projects. I've never been anywhere near being a "lead programmer" or anything like that. I have, however, contributed to extensions/modules/bug fixes etc. I use Linux as my sole operating system and contribute as many bug reports (with full info) as I feel reasonable.

At the moment my job is in adapting an open source CMS for a large interactive website. We will be contributing everything we do to the code back to the developers. As an aside, it's not something we are obliged to do under the GPL since we will not be distributing the software.

I'm sure there are plenty of people on these boards who do similar things to me.

However, there are even more who just use Linux (they have other things than computing that they do with their lives), but understand the principles of the free software movement (that's free as in freedom).

I am not about to disenfranchise these people since they are the whole point of the free software movement. Telling them to put up and shut up is arrogant and disrespectful of the freedoms we are trying to create for ALL computer users.

[ecadre]

panickedthumb: thanks for your reply to me. I'm rather happier now :)

[TravisNewman]

panickedthumb: thanks for your reply to me. I'm rather happier now :)
glad to know ;) I thought you might be. Thanks for your concern about things, and thanks for being understanding.

[az]

Vbuletin is proprietariy, but that does not matter.

Amazon.com and google run proprietary applications, but that does not make them bad. The users of the forum use the service. We should be debating under what licence the individual posts fall under instead.

I object to proprietary software because I do not want to run it and because I do not think it has as much potential as free and open source stuff. But I really do not care what is running on a remote server that shows me web pages.

The GPL is a licence between the author of software and the user who installs it. I do not think that UbuntuGeek is forcing ANYONE to install vBuletin on their machine. I think that is the assumption that everyone is under.

The same goes for Launchpad.

If you are interested in the concept of extending the GPL to apply to users of software and not just those who run it, google "affero GPL"

[ecadre]

Vbuletin is proprietariy, but that does not matter.

Amazon.com and google run proprietary applications, but that does not make them bad. The users of the forum use the service. We should be debating under what licence the individual posts fall under instead.

I object to proprietary software because I do not want to run it and because I do not think it has as much potential as free and open source stuff. But I really do not care what is running on a remote server that shows me web pages.

The GPL is a licence between the author of software and the user who installs it. I do not think that UbuntuGeek is forcing ANYONE to install vBuletin on their machine. I think that is the assumption that everyone is under.

The same goes for Launchpad.

If you are interested in the concept of extending the GPL to apply to users of software and not just those who run it, google "affero GPL"

Sorry, you've got things subtly wrong with the obligations of the GPL and the new clause in the affero GPL.

The GPL puts obligations upon people who distribute software (whether they've adapted it or not) whereby they must also offer the source code of the software, including any adaptations, and pass on the freedoms of the GPL to anyone who obtains it.

If you do not distribute your code to third parties there is no obligation to reveal it to anybody. This means that individuals or organisations that run GPLed software on their webservers, even if they have rewritten the code, do not have to release the code.

The affero GPL license would put an obligation upon anyone running affero GPLed software on a network to provide users with the full source code of any modified version or derivative work.

[garnertr]

Who adds attachments to posts anyway? I always just upload my pictures I want to post to Photobucket and use the [IMG] tags.

What is photobucket?

[TravisNewman]

What is photobucket?
http://photobucket.com/

[poptones]

Your last point, though, is one I have great problems with.

I thought you might.


However, there are even more who just use Linux (they have other things than computing that they do with their lives), but understand the principles of the free software movement (that's free as in freedom).

I am not about to disenfranchise these people since they are the whole point of the free software movement. Telling them to put up and shut up is arrogant and disrespectful of the freedoms we are trying to create for ALL computer users.

Those other, anonymous users you are talking about are not on this forum stomping their feet about how the FORUM isn't run on "free software." I wasn't telling "these people" to put up or shut up, I was telling you to put up or shut up.

[ecadre]

I thought you might.
Those other, anonymous users you are talking about are not on this forum stomping their feet about how the FORUM isn't run on "free software." I wasn't telling "these people" to put up or shut up, I was telling you to put up or shut up.

Really, how childish.

It's a pity you don't seem to have read the thread.

[TravisNewman]

OK BWF89 has gotten his answer, ecadre has posted that he's satisfied after my explanation, and this is startint to turn into an insult war, so I'm going to close this one down. It's served his purpose.

[az]

Sorry, you've got things subtly wrong with the obligations of the GPL and the new clause in the affero GPL.

The GPL puts obligations upon people who distribute software (whether they've adapted it or not) whereby they must also offer the source code of the software, including any adaptations, and pass on the freedoms of the GPL to anyone who obtains it.

If you do not distribute your code to third parties there is no obligation to reveal it to anybody. This means that individuals or organisations that run GPLed software on their webservers, even if they have rewritten the code, do not have to release the code.

The affero GPL license would put an obligation upon anyone running affero GPLed software on a network to provide users with the full source code of any modified version or derivative work.

I am picking the lock on this thread to take the opportunity to say that you are exactly right. My description of the GPL, in this case, was sloppy because I was trying to point out the pertinence of it's effects to this topic.

So, kudos to you for expressing yourself so well!