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."

Comments

Re:You're fighting a losing battle

[FattMattP]

With regards to OSS tools, there are two choices. Use them or not. Using them entails following the GPL which adds all sorts of weird, non-obvious restrictions. Not using them means they can get on with their normal routine.

The GPL adds exactly zero restrictions to using a piece of software. The GPL is a distribution license. It affects what you have to do to redistribute GPL'd software. If you aren't distributing software, then you can throw the GPL out the window and get on with using the software.