Maybe access to the source of in-house modifications should be a requirement for being a listed vendor on the site? We may not be able to alter the terms of the GPL, but we can decide the terms of <a href="http://koha.org">koha.org</a> ( assuming we have and will have that much control over it ). I would expect that we would have to grandfather all current vendors though.<br>
<br>Kyle<br><br clear="all"><a href="http://www.kylehall.info">http://www.kylehall.info</a><br>Information Technology<br>Crawford County Federated Library System ( <a href="http://www.ccfls.org">http://www.ccfls.org</a> )<br>
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM, MJ Ray <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop">mjr@phonecoop.coop</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Nicolas Morin <<a href="mailto:nicolas.morin@biblibre.com">nicolas.morin@biblibre.com</a>><br>
> [...] we at BibLibre<br>
<div class="im">> posted an article on our web site about this issue:<br>
> <a href="http://www.biblibre.com/content/liblime-koha-biblibre-and-floss" target="_blank">http://www.biblibre.com/content/liblime-koha-biblibre-and-floss</a><br>
<br>
</div>Amongst other things, that says:<br>
<br>
"BibLibre decided we needed to modify our standard hosting contract<br>
to close the GPL loophole used by LibLime: in our future contracts,<br>
and when the current contracts are renewed, an extra article is<br>
added to the contract which specifies that even though the software<br>
is hosted, the library has access to the source code, GPLed."<br>
<br>
I'm surprised because <a href="http://software.coop" target="_blank">software.coop</a>'s usual contract terms have said<br>
that we "grant permission to the Buyer to use, copy, modify, adapt or<br>
enhance the material supplied in the performance of the Services, so<br>
far as [the co-op] is permitted to grant that permission" since at<br>
least 2006 and probably before (I'd need to check paper files to be<br>
sure).<br>
<br>
For Koha, that means you get a copy under the GPL, basically.<br>
<br>
What with all the flaming of LibLime for hosting lock-in, I didn't<br>
expect that other Koha vendors weren't making at least that promise<br>
already. So - would the other vendors like to state their current<br>
contract permissions? Anyone else want to follow the co-op and<br>
BibLibre and make this promise to your buyers?<br>
<br>
Also, I'd like to know whether anyone else's hosting-source-access<br>
clause forbids evil tricks like public key encryption? Offering<br>
access alone isn't sufficient. Also, what about the data?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software<br>
<a href="http://www.software.coop" target="_blank">www.software.coop</a> <a href="http://mjr.towers.org.uk" target="_blank">http://mjr.towers.org.uk</a> | .... co<br>
IMO only: see <a href="http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html" target="_blank">http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html</a> | .... op<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Koha mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz">Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha" target="_blank">http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>