Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using OSS for In-House Tools, Only?

Posted by Cliff on from the battling-the-GPL-FUD dept.

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."

4 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. Re:You're fighting a losing battle by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  2. Re:Question? by devphil · · Score: 4, Informative


    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)
  3. Re:Question? (and the answer questioned) by zangdesign · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:Question? (and the answer questioned) by rubinson · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.