3

Reading this GPL FAQ item on non-software works:

You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work.

It says that it must be "clear what constitutes 'source code' for the work," so how do you go about clearly defining "source code" for work that is not purely software; work that is a mix of text and images served on a website?

I'm trying to avoid Creative-Commons.

Edit I've read the post recommended in comments even before posting this question. It goes to explain the difference between "source code" and "object code". It does not answer my question of how to change or set a new definition for the terms "source code" and "object code" of the GPL.

apsillers
  • 35,995
  • 4
  • 94
  • 131
Jonas
  • 139
  • 4
  • I know that the Google Material Design Icons are licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. You could look there for some inspiration. But why are you trying to avoid the Creative Commons licenses? They are designed precisely for that purpose. – Zizouz212 Aug 03 '17 at 05:47
  • Creative Commons are to a degree compatible with the GPL, but they are not recommended for software. Since my work will reside in a website (technically a software) and this https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WMS I'm looking for something to cover that aspect as well as non-software work. Seeing that the GPL allows it, I'd like to know examples on how to define these terms : "source code", "preferred form", and "object code" to describe text, images, or any other media types – Jonas Aug 03 '17 at 06:03
  • You do realize that you can license your software components under the GPL, and that you can license your media works under the CC licenses, right? – Zizouz212 Aug 03 '17 at 06:09
  • No I did know that. In that case, it will makes things much easier for me since down the future there would probably be data generated by readers and data made available by third parties which might be covered under other types of licenses (Google, Vimeo, Twitter, etc). Although I would still like to keep this question just to see if there's an answer that would rid me of CC. – Jonas Aug 03 '17 at 06:15
  • If I remember correctly (so don't take my word on this yet), media wouldn't be subject to the GPLs copyleft provisions, so as long as there is that separate interaction, you're okay. Although I must say, I'm quite confused as to your licensing scheme - is the GPL for server software? Client? Where is the media? – Zizouz212 Aug 03 '17 at 06:17
  • As I understand it php is software run on the server. I'd need AGPL/GPL for that. Media will be served from the website/software pretty much just like this one we're using right now – Jonas Aug 03 '17 at 06:20
  • Why would you need the GPL for running php? Doesn't it have it's own license? I don't understand the entire situation - what's your main objective in the end? – Zizouz212 Aug 03 '17 at 06:23
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Jonas Aug 03 '17 at 06:31
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of With GPL, what does "source code" mean for non-software? – Bart van Ingen Schenau Aug 03 '17 at 18:36
  • I've made an edit to my question concerning the "duplicate" post – Jonas Aug 04 '17 at 02:34
  • 1
    So, your question is actually "If I license my work under the GPL, how do I specify 'source code' to mean something different than what the terms of GPL require 'source code' to mean?" Is that correct? – apsillers Aug 04 '17 at 11:27
  • @apsillers yes. – Jonas Aug 04 '17 at 13:04
  • I've tried my best to apply your question as I understand it to the GPL FAQ item you've linked to (and I've edited my answer accordingly). If I didn't get it quite right, please edit it further to make the particulars of your question more clear. – apsillers Aug 04 '17 at 13:38
  • 2
    If you don't want to use the license as intended then you shouldn't use it! – curiousdannii Aug 04 '17 at 14:57
  • It seems like you're really asking (or really should be asking) "How do I limit what parts of my work the GPL applies to?" rather than the substantially harder question "How I can apply the GPL to everything but relax source-sharing requirements for some parts?" – apsillers Aug 04 '17 at 19:08
  • @apsillers I'm not looking to "limit" but rather "broaden" the GPL to include other parts without any "relaxing". If that doesn't make sense; have the GPL apply for media files instead of just source code and software – Jonas Aug 05 '17 at 02:21
  • @Jonas: What format of the media files do you use to make changes to them? If you have the answer to that, you also know what the "source" is of the media files within the definitions used by the GPL. No need to invent new definitions. – Bart van Ingen Schenau Aug 05 '17 at 06:35

1 Answers1

1

I think you may be confused by the "as long as it is clear" langauge of that FAQ item. The FAQ item isn't saying that you must make it clear what the source form of a work is, but rather it is saying that there should be a naturally obvious source form of the work. The GNU GPL defines "source code" in its definitions:

The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

You are free to clarify what you believe to be the source form of a work, but you might be incorrect. If you said "These compiled *.o object files are the source form of my executable, since they can be linked to form my executable" that would be wrong -- the source form of your executable is the original source written in a human-readable programming language. The object files are not the preferred from for making modifications.

In your webpage case, since raw HTML is the preferred form for making modifications to a webpage, the webpage is its own source. (This is similarly true for most software written in interpreted languages.) If a downstream distributor obfuscates the readability of the page's HTML (e.g., for compression) then the GPL's source code requirement requires the distributor to make the unobfuscated version of the HTML available to everyone who receives that obfuscated version.

If you are thinking about a complete web application with server-side code, you must understand that the GPL does not place requirements on works that are not distributed. If users receive a GPL-licensed webpage in HTML, and that webpage happens to interact with a network service, there is no GPL requirement to share the code of the network service. (The Affero GPL (AGPL) is a license that does impose such a requirement.)

If you want to apply a different meaning for "source code" than the one that the GPL already supplies, you can make a modified version of the GPL, though you should not do this without a very good reason (since it will be likely incompatible with the GPL) and you should seek the advice of a lawyer (since otherwise you may draft a license that has unintentional effects or unenforceable requirements). You could also create a GPL exception to the effect of "When you distribute this work in object form, instead of sharing the source code (e.g., preferred form for modifications) as normally required in section 6, you may instead share [something else]." I am unsure why anyone would want to do this, since such an exception undermines the primary distinguishing feature of the GPL and strongly suggests you really are not really interested in using the GPL at all.

apsillers
  • 35,995
  • 4
  • 94
  • 131
  • I appreciate the time you took to write that. There's useful information in your answer but sadly for me it misses the point of my question. I've come to understand that a website's content and building blocks(infrastructure) are two separate works. I could dual-license the content under CC BY-SA then have the website software and any source code I may release there under a GPL/AGPL. I don't want to go that route if I can cover everything by GPL. If I only had text on my webpage I probably wouldn't need to redefine anything, but I have images, videos, spreadsheets, etc. – Jonas Aug 04 '17 at 14:56
  • @jonas For user-supplied content of a website, the GPL might not be the most suitable license. The users would effectively be required to provide the "source" along with their contribution. – Bart van Ingen Schenau Aug 04 '17 at 17:00
  • @BartvanIngenSchenau For the time being user generated data is not within the scope of my question. – Jonas Aug 04 '17 at 22:48