Someone just asked Eben Moglen about why GPLv3 didn't stick to its original intention to apply the GPL to distribution on the web, by which I mean distribution of software as a service over the Internet. I found Eben's original answer ("this is a matter of conflicting rights") to be circuitous and unsatisfactory. I pushed him on it, asking if he didn't see that by not applying the GPL to software distributed as Someone just asked Eben Moglen about why GPLv3 didn’t stick to its original intention to apply the GPL to distribution on the web, by which I mean distribution of software as a service over the Internet. I found Eben’s original answer (“this is a matter of conflicting rights”) to be circuitous and unsatisfactory. I pushed him on it, asking if he didn’t see that by not applying the GPL to software distributed as a service relegated copyleft to 20th Century software distribution. He suggested that I watch his presentation to Google, wherein he argues, in effect, that if Google isn’t a good steward of the open source software it downloads, modifies, and distributes services upon, the community will seek to control its use of such software.I didn’t like this at first, because to me it puts Google in the same boat as Microsoft (eating others’ software as its free lunch). I think Stallman and Eben are off in their views as to Google’s (and others like them) “private” modifications of open source software. To me, there is nothing private about those modifications. They are public the minute they distribute services based on these modifications over the web. That’s my opinion. But perhaps Eben is right. Perhaps the best way to work with the Googles of the world is through friendly community pressure. Open Source