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."
If the opinion of GPL code is really that bad, why not use dual-licensing to get around it?
If you released your OSS project with a license that allowed the licensee to apply their choice of the GPL or a standard "You have no rights to redistribute" license, they might actually be more reassured. (as strange/silly as that is)
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
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?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program,
In this case, "derived from" is not referring to the output of the program, but the actual codebase of the program having been modified in some way.
from the GPL FAQ
Q: Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?
A: In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.
So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.
You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
The important part (i.e., all your computers are beong to us). Of course, that's also the part they're used to disregarding...
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
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)
I think that is the crux of the issue. Modifying the code doesn't modify the license; and, according to section 2, all you really need to do is copy the modified code to trigger it:
Who doesn't make copies of their code?
So, actually, it looks like Microsoft and ADTI have it right in a sense:
Premise: Original work licensed under the GPL.
Premise: Company obtains a copy through GPL and makes modifications.
Premise: Company makes copies of modified code for internal use.
Premise: GPL, under section 7, doesn't allow additional restrictions on distribution. So, company cannot restrict distribution.
Conclusion: Anyone with access to modified source can distribute under the GPL or company cannot use GPL'd work.
Hmmmm.... Not exactly the mindset I've been working under. How did we start this conversation? Oh yeah, we we're looking for proof Microsoft and ADTI were wrong. Oops.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
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.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
These things are very different; there's a tonne of open source software out there that lots of people use that isn't GPL:
To constantly suggest that the GPL is the One True License is not only wrong, but very damaging, since it undermines perceived choice over licensing.
This is supposed to be a site for vaguely intelligent people; can't we at least make some effort to be more precise in our terminology?