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

why bother with the GPL

[Naikrovek]

its possible to "open source" your software without following the GPL, a licence which I myself do not choose when i write software.

off-on-a-tangent-time: to me, truly "free" software means adding no stipulations of any kind, unlike the GPL. therefore, short of paying a lawyer lots of $ to write the Naikrovek(tm) license, i use the BSD license for all the software i write. Fortunately for me, my entire company licenses the software they work on under the BSD license, unless its trade-secret.

there's nothing saying that you have to use the GPL for your in-house tools.