GPLv3 license question

I’m looking at an RMM that claims to be open source. The issue is their code was custom built by them, with a couple features using code via the GPLv3 license. The company doesn’t have code posted anywhere that will allow people to view it. Isn’t the GPL license the one that says if you use this code as part of your code, the entire new project becomes open source and needs to be released to the public?

[Fred, I think that this is the first time that you’ve posted to the TWiT community - if so, welcome!]

Yes, your understanding is basically correct. The “copyleft” nature of the GPL v3 mean that if GPL’ed code is included into the code base for an executable, then the full code base for that executable must be published as GPL v3 too. If the solution is made up of multiple executables, then it is likely that only the ones actually including GPL code must be released.

Without investigating in detail the nature of the Remote Monitoring and Management solution that you’re evaluating, it’s hard to be definitive but it would certainly give me pause to consider alternatives. A company that plays fast and loose with its software licensing obligations is liable to have taken shortcuts elsewhere.

1 Like

First, you should try to reconfirm the actual license if possible. Licenses & Standards | Open Source Initiative These things do rarely change over time… by pulling out code and replacing it with something of a different license.

Does the project have a email address? Send them an email inquiring about the source availability. At the start be polite but insist that if they use GPL code in their product then they must have a source distribution and ask to be directed to it. If they don’t reply after a reasonable time, or the response is to “go away” then you can escalate by reporting them to https://gpl-violations.org/ .

1 Like

Welcome to the community.

As @whern says, it depends on what they have done with the GPLed code. If they have integrated it into their product (they use the GPL code as a base of their code and they compile their extensions into the GPLed code, they need to provide all the code under GPL.

If they use open APIs of some libraries, they have to provide the source to those libraries (or a link to the original repositiory), but not their code. (E.g. they build a solution that runs on GNU Linux).