Slashdot Mirror
Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?
Robert Hart writes "With people such as Microsoft and ADTI suggesting incorrectly that if you use GPL software in house (without distributing it to third parties) you must make your code publicly available, actual examples of people using GPL software internally would seem to be the best response (pragmatic examples to back up the 'theory').
I am interested in hearing about examples of corporations and government agencies, from around the world, using GPL software as part of an inhouse development effort. As there is also a potential for time/money saving by doing this, there is a possibility that this
may lead to some research to put numbers behind this."
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, [...] provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License."
I've posted this link this morning, but here it is again:
http://research.microsoft.com/~dbwilson/
Hrmm let's see...... domain: Microsoft. body: references to GNU and GPL'd applications/code!
mod me down this time. I dare you.
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
It's not that hard, really:
Say there's a GPL'd package called Foo. You take it, modify it in-house, and compile it to form a modified binary that we'll call Foo2.
If you only use Foo2 in-house, then you need not release the changes. No problem.
Now, let's say you provide the Foo2 binary to someone else outside your organization. (Free of charge, for money, for chocolate, whatever.) Now you must also provide your modifications. It doesn't need to be public, but whoever gets the Foo2 binary must also be able to get the changes to turn Foo into Foo2.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
In the FAQ, it states that an organization as a whole can make a modified copy and not distribute it. So the organization is the responsible body, not the individual employee.
That would imply that an employee could NOT distribute it without the permission of the organization, if the modified product was intended for in-house use only.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Unfortunately, I don't have mod points today. Somebody please moderate the parent up because it gets to the entire crux of the issue.
An organization is considered a single body; therefore, one can "redistribute" a GPL'd work internally ad infinitum without invoking the GPL. ("Redistribute" is in quotes because one can't technically redistribute a program to themselves; that's just copying.)
Posts to this thread are confused. An organization doesn't "give" software to its employees. Rather, the organization acquires software which is then used by employees. There's no redistribution and, therefore, the GPL isn't invoked. As such, the employee has no right to redistribute the software whatsoever. And to do so would, at a minimum, be a violation of company policy. Most likely, it would also (legally) be considered theft.