It is required when a gift comes with obligations (as with GPL-3; it's not a "Gift Public License").
It is morally expected because we would all ideally like to live in a world where everyone understands the spirit of gifting, which will lead to a better, more just world overall.
I recommend you familiarize yourself with the GPL-3, if you build something based on a GPL-3 piece of software, it's not an 'optional' obligation. If you want to build something on an open source something and keep your derivative private, then use something that originated as BSD licensed, as Sony did with the FreeBSD kernel that ended up in the PS4 and PS5.
GPL v3.0 has a SaaS loophole. The GPL's trigger is conveyance (transferring a copy), not network access. Merely running modified GPL v3.0 code on a server and serving users over HTTP is not "conveying" under the letter of GPL v3.0, so it does not by itself obligate you to release source. This loophole was fixed in AGPL v3.
Except that the OP has already stated elsewhere in the thread they intend to release it after cleaning it up a bit, so the person I was replying to ('sneak') has much less of a point.
Yes of course there's plenty of companies using GPL licensed software to run their own SaaS. I can think of off the top of my head just about every domain registrar in existence that has their own custom tech stack which almost certainly has tons of bits and pieces of GPL stuff in it, and they're certainly not releasing all their server-side/back-end code.
I would also be very doubtful that people who use bits and pieces of AGPL v3 software in their internal operations are ever going to release their custom modifications of it. In many cases the GPL licensed stuff is implemented in such a way that the user manipulating a publicly-accessible web user interface, a user interface accessible after signing in, or an API will never see or know the exact pieces running under the hood.
If something is granted under GPL terms, it's not a gift. It has terms.
You can accept the terms or decline the thing. The terms are simply not money. The terms are "you can have this and do anything you want with it and the only cost is that you have to give the next guy the same thing you were given."
It's morally expected, not required. And because that's the spirit of FOSS. It's just considered bad form to extract, profit, and not give back.
I don't know any FOSS folks that think they're "giving people a gift" alone. It usually goes deeper than that. Maybe some kind of anti authoritarian, anti establishment, or anti capitalist ideology, or a strong care for user freedom, or a desire to participate in the FOSS community.
I always thought of ideology as a bit of a formalized "ism" type package. But I suppose you are correct, a habitual way of being is still a thought program of some sort, conscious or subconscious.
It is required when a gift comes with obligations (as with GPL-3; it's not a "Gift Public License").
It is morally expected because we would all ideally like to live in a world where everyone understands the spirit of gifting, which will lead to a better, more just world overall.
I recommend you familiarize yourself with the GPL-3, if you build something based on a GPL-3 piece of software, it's not an 'optional' obligation. If you want to build something on an open source something and keep your derivative private, then use something that originated as BSD licensed, as Sony did with the FreeBSD kernel that ended up in the PS4 and PS5.
GPL v3.0 has a SaaS loophole. The GPL's trigger is conveyance (transferring a copy), not network access. Merely running modified GPL v3.0 code on a server and serving users over HTTP is not "conveying" under the letter of GPL v3.0, so it does not by itself obligate you to release source. This loophole was fixed in AGPL v3.
Using software under one of the four freedoms (to run a business) is not a “loophole”.
The AGPL violates the four freedoms, as well as the user’s privacy, and is thus a nonfree license.
Except that the OP has already stated elsewhere in the thread they intend to release it after cleaning it up a bit, so the person I was replying to ('sneak') has much less of a point.
Yes of course there's plenty of companies using GPL licensed software to run their own SaaS. I can think of off the top of my head just about every domain registrar in existence that has their own custom tech stack which almost certainly has tons of bits and pieces of GPL stuff in it, and they're certainly not releasing all their server-side/back-end code.
I would also be very doubtful that people who use bits and pieces of AGPL v3 software in their internal operations are ever going to release their custom modifications of it. In many cases the GPL licensed stuff is implemented in such a way that the user manipulating a publicly-accessible web user interface, a user interface accessible after signing in, or an API will never see or know the exact pieces running under the hood.
If something is granted under GPL terms, it's not a gift. It has terms.
You can accept the terms or decline the thing. The terms are simply not money. The terms are "you can have this and do anything you want with it and the only cost is that you have to give the next guy the same thing you were given."
Why is reciprocation such a problem?
It's morally expected, not required. And because that's the spirit of FOSS. It's just considered bad form to extract, profit, and not give back.
I don't know any FOSS folks that think they're "giving people a gift" alone. It usually goes deeper than that. Maybe some kind of anti authoritarian, anti establishment, or anti capitalist ideology, or a strong care for user freedom, or a desire to participate in the FOSS community.
Some people also don't really have an ideology behind it besides want to share and make things better for all.
Nothing is required and we shouldn't morally shame the less evolved who are still chasing fiat by pretending ownership of number strings.
But your actions do show who you are.
> want to share and make things better for all
Heh but, isn't this an ideology? Including the non-proselytizing aspect of it?
I completely agree with you on the fake number strings.
I always thought of ideology as a bit of a formalized "ism" type package. But I suppose you are correct, a habitual way of being is still a thought program of some sort, conscious or subconscious.