Query from a friend of mine:
"We have a code released under GPL2, the source is available for download over the web and by subversion. However, we would like to have some better stats of who our users are and how many they are. Unfortunately, its impossible to track people downloading the code via subversion. Hence I had an idea to request subversion users to mail us to ask for the anonymous password - thus providing us with the number of users, and also with email addresses that we can use to send user surveys and other spam to. Would this go against the terms of the GPL?"
Opinions welcome*.
Thanks,
Malcolm
* Please post to the list since then I can just point him to the archives.
Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
Query from a friend of mine:
"We have a code released under GPL2, the source is available for download over the web and by subversion. However, we would like to have some better stats of who our users are and how many they are. Unfortunately, its impossible to track people downloading the code via subversion. Hence I had an idea to request subversion users to mail us to ask for the anonymous password - thus providing us with the number of users, and also with email addresses that we can use to send user surveys and other spam to. Would this go against the terms of the GPL?"
[I'm not a legal expert, but then you guessed that]
I believe this would be acceptable under the GPL2, and isn't all that uncommon. There is no requirement that the source be available to the public at large, only that it be available to those who you have given the binaries to. Restricting the download to those users via a password system should be fine.
HOWEVER, they cannot stop further distribution of the sources by their users, and it would be a violation of the GPL to add any terms that did this (I am simplifying somewhat here -- see GPLV2 3c, for example). In practice I imagine that most people would fetch the source from the original site anyway, so they will probably achieve their aim of counting the source-desiring users. But if the software wound up in, say, Debian then downloads of the source debs would not be counted.
Opinions welcome*.
Thanks,
Malcolm
- Please post to the list since then I can just point him to the
archives.
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
Hi Malcolm et al.,
It won't go against the terms of the GPL2, as hundreds of folks do it all the time (and even the FSF on rare occasion), but it will seriously put a dent in your download numbers, in our experience.
The better solution is to only provide access to the archived source via SVN over anonymous HTTP and then just perform a count on the webserver log of complete transfers.
Joe
On 23 Jun, 2009, at 23:17, Glenn Strong wrote:
Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
Query from a friend of mine:
"We have a code released under GPL2, the source is available for download over the web and by subversion. However, we would like to have some better stats of who our users are and how many they are. Unfortunately, its impossible to track people downloading the code via subversion. Hence I had an idea to request subversion users to mail us to ask for the anonymous password - thus providing us with the number of users, and also with email addresses that we can use to send user surveys and other spam to. Would this go against the terms of the GPL?"
[I'm not a legal expert, but then you guessed that]
I believe this would be acceptable under the GPL2, and isn't all that uncommon. There is no requirement that the source be available to the public at large, only that it be available to those who you have given the binaries to. Restricting the download to those users via a password system should be fine.
HOWEVER, they cannot stop further distribution of the sources by their users, and it would be a violation of the GPL to add any terms that did this (I am simplifying somewhat here -- see GPLV2 3c, for example). In practice I imagine that most people would fetch the source from the original site anyway, so they will probably achieve their aim of counting the source-desiring users. But if the software wound up in, say, Debian then downloads of the source debs would not be counted.
Opinions welcome*.
Thanks,
Malcolm
- Please post to the list since then I can just point him to the
archives.
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org mailing list List information: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie Public archive: https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
"We have a code released under GPL2, the source is available for download over the web and by subversion. However, we would like to have some better stats of who our users are and how many they are. Unfortunately, its impossible to track people downloading the code via subversion.
Without knowing what the application is or what it does, it might be worth considering putting a step into the application that 'calls home' every time it's installed. In the interests of not-being-an-asshole, you should allow the administrator to decide against registering their details, but I think most people will not mind if it's a transparent process. You could also add the option to anonymise the call home - that would allow you to know how many installs, but deny you their contact information.
If you make it difficult for administrators to retain their privacy, others will probably just remove this functionality and redistribute the software.
Rory
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:38:36 +0100 Malcolm Tyrrell malcolm.r.tyrrell@gmail.com wrote:
Would this go against the terms of the GPL?"
This is just my opinion, but I've studied the GPLv2 fairly closely. According to "Section 3", for every binary release of the code, you should "make available" the corresponding source. Having the source "available for download" fulfils this under Section 3(a).
If you don't provide binaries from the latest SVN then there's no requirement to provide access to the source code via SVN. If you *do* provide binaries from the latest SVN, providing a downloadable archive, an "SVN snapshot" of the latest source code, would fulfil the requirement just as well.
In general, I don't think this policy would be a problem from a GPL perspective, but it may annoy users and potential contributors slightly.
- Cathal