10

There are a number of open integrated development environments which offer developer to make and compile software, such as the replit.com platform. Will the author of the code have full rights on the software or part of it will belong to the IDE creators because of using their server?

Paŭlo Ebermann
  • 103
  • 3
user29156
  • 103
  • 5
  • According to section 9 of the terms of service of https://replit.com/site/terms, if you make a public Repl or on a public "Teams for Friends" with their service, then you agree that the the content you post there will become "automatically" MIT licensed. – Brandin Jan 26 '23 at 14:59

1 Answers1

17

As we have said, and as you know, if the IDE is a piece of software you download and run locally, then generally speaking the IDE's licence has no effect on the licence under which your code can be released.

If, however, the IDE is purely web-based, and offered as SaaS (software as a service), then it will depend on the provider's ToS (terms of service). There have certainly been some pretty awful land grabs in ToS history, and if the IDE provider you choose has something in their ToS that gives all rights in created code to them, well, you just gave your code away.

SaaS has a number of dangers, and this is one of them. If you don't want that, and you don't want to be reading endless ToS documents, don't use a SaaS IDE. You can read the same argument made more cogently and at more length here.

MadHatter
  • 48,547
  • 4
  • 122
  • 166
  • 1
    many thanks for the answer. Yes, I meant SaaS IDEs. Your answer made me understanding the problem – user29156 Jan 24 '23 at 13:23
  • But what about working on a project under GPL? I mean, regardless of the terms of service, the code remains under GPL. – J Fabian Meier Jan 25 '23 at 12:46
  • 8
    @JFabianMeier essentially, if you upload third-party GPL code to a SaaS provider whose ToS does any kind of land-grab, you've just violated the third-party's copyright by conveying code under terms other than GPL. Don't do that. – MadHatter Jan 25 '23 at 12:54
  • 4
    The question of course remains if this land-grab is enforceable, especially if you are not a company, but just a private person. – J Fabian Meier Jan 25 '23 at 13:45
  • The only time I saw license restrictions was in a widely used expensive commercial compiler that had a free (no money)version. With the restriction that you couldn’t make money with the free version. You were allowed to write software with the intent to sell it if you paid for the commercial version before any sale. – gnasher729 Jan 25 '23 at 21:31
  • Note that them writing something in their ToS doesn't actually make it true. – user253751 Jan 25 '23 at 21:51
  • @MadHatter is that true? One could argue that the code was already GPL the moment they pressed the keys on their keyboard. Thus, them putting it on the SaaS platform is the equivalent of delivering your GPL source code to any third party. So yes, they get a copy. But no, it does not relieve them from their GPL obligations. At least that's what I would assume? IANAL. – Opifex Jan 26 '23 at 12:33
  • @Opifex that's exactly the problem: uploading doesn't relieve the uploader of their GPL obligations. So uploading to a system that won't take it on those terms, but instead insists on different, incompatible terms, leaves you in the the situation foreseen by eg GPLv3 s12: "If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all". What you don't get to do is upload it anyway while blithely saying "The GPL trumps the ToS", because that's not so. – MadHatter Jan 26 '23 at 12:43
  • Right, that makes sense I guess @MadHatter. However, I would argue that it is then the ToS of the SaaS platform you are breaching, and not the GPL. To draw a caricature: if you drive over to their office and throw a copy on their desk without their consent, they can sue you for littering, but they do not have the right to breach the GPL. I'd say the same applies here: you breached their ToS, and they (technically) can sue you for damages, but they do not gain any additional author rights on the code you uploaded to their platform. (Which was the basis of this question) – Opifex Jan 26 '23 at 13:43
  • @Opifex I partly agree, and partly disagree, but this is not the place for the discussion. If you want to ask a question about what exactly happens if you upload third-party GPL code to a service with GPL-incompatible ToS, I recommend you ask that question, and we can discuss it there. – MadHatter Jan 26 '23 at 14:34
  • The "land-grabs" article you linked to is interesting for non-programmers but has nothing about IDEs, nor anything very relevant to programming. Are there any relevant examples of "do not use" online IDEs, online REPLs, online code hosting, etc., that have to do with problematic terms of service? – Brandin Jan 26 '23 at 14:44
  • @Brandin not that I know of, but since I don't use SaaS or IDEs it's not something I'd ever come across. The existence of user-hostile ToS for other SaaS is established by the article; between that and GitHub's recent landgrab for Copilot I felt justified in writing the answer I did. If you think such a thing couldn't be, feel free to write your own contrary answer! – MadHatter Jan 26 '23 at 14:57