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

gcc...

[josepha48]

At just about every company that I have worked at they used gcc as the compiler at one point or another and did not open source their software. On one project it was a cost savings to use gcc. It was flat out cheaper. At my current job we use gcc on Sun and Linux for out ports. As the economy started to fall we needed a cheap compiler for Sun and I suggeseted gcc. They bought it so to speak as the Sun compiler was much more expensive (about $3000 a seat or maybe it was $300 I can't remember). There have been issues with gcc, but nothing that was major. Basically it required a few programs to be properly coded. Like using memset instead of memcpy which HP did not complain about. Also things like removing the multiple function declarations (different ones at that) which gcc does not like but HP seemed okay with.

Oh and if you know anyone that is looking for a large scale leasing app that runs on Linux please reply to this post with more info. We are getting ready to release an alpha and I just got eop working today ;-).

Cisco uses opensource tools, libs, and so on.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have to open up our proprietary code, because we understand the GPL, and our lawyers understand the GPL. We even have a way for Cisco employees to make opensource software available to the world via a variety of licenses, as long as the correct permission is obtained by the employees doing it.

Giving away GPL code?

[dirk]

This is a tad off-topic, but somewhat related. I know according to the GPL you only need to provide source to the people you provide the binaries to. If you don't provide binaries to anyone outside the company, you do not need to provide source to anyone outside the company. But isn't one of the other stipulations of the GPL that anyone can redistribute the source/binaries as long as the follow the GPL? What is to stop someone within your organization from taking the source from your internal app and distributing it outside the company? OR is there some part of the GPL that I'm missing that would prevent this?