If the patent mentioned lasers (albeint by description, rather than by name) in 1957 then by Jove, that's worth a patent.
The MASER was invented before then. The only difference between a MASAR and a LASER is the frequency of the EM radiation.
The advantages of using collimated and coherent light over other light sources in a chamical reaction are great, and certinally non-obvious back then.
It's long been known that "light" can affect chemical reactions. e.g. photography. The idea that monochromatic light would be best for catalysing a specific reaction probably crossed someone's mind as soon as the "photon model" was accepted.
I don't think the idea would have been so obvious to an undergrad in *1957* or *1964* which is when the patents were filed... it's not the patent holders fault these patents weren't actually granted until 1987 and 1992.
IIRC it actually is the patent holder's fault. Since they kept filing ammendments to their applications.
Sounds like you should talk to a lawyer to explain what the GPL actually does. No-one needs to talk to you to use your GPL'd stuff commercially. That fact that they do, means that either those companies dont have competant programmers in your coding area, or they dont have competant lawyers:->
Or that too many people confuse "commercially" with "proprietary".
Actually, If I understand the GPL correctly; they can. They just can't redistribute their changes without revealing their code (and codes). Althought, they can distribute changes (the source code itself) for what changes they don't hold confidential.
What's far more likely to be an issue is confidential data. In which case people would be better advised to closely read proprietary EULAs.
Therein returning work to the community. You can make all the changes you want to GPL code without releasing the code. You just can't release the (new) binaries without contributing it's code also.
Most entities, including government departments are not in the business of distributing software in the first place. Anyway the provisions of the GPL only applies to the specific entities you distribute to. e.g. if you sell GPL software the only people who can ask you for the code are your customers. N.B. the GPL is only concerned with distribution to third parties, not the details of the distribution.
If you're so inclined, you could go into business to try to make money from the software; you could improve the interface, or make it easier to search for partnerships, or whatever. Of course, you must GPL your changes, but you might be the clear leaders in the installation and configuration of this SW, so you could make some money. In any case, whether you can make money or not, the taxpayers do not lose out.
Also since all the changes are GPLed it's rather hard to end up with various versions which are incompatable. Since any supplier can find out how any changes made to it work.
Suppose now that the software is released into the public domain, or even under a BSD licence. Suppose further that half-a-dozen firms spot a market opportunity to improve this project and make a commercial product out of the system. This is fine in principle
Unless you end up with 6 forks of the program which won't interoperate with each other...
but if one of those six firms is Microsoft, we have an immediate problem. MS could decide to integrate the system into MS Outlook; perhaps the system uses email to communicate opportunities. We still have no problem of course, because there are five other competitors, any of whom could come up with a better approach to improving the product.
Since Microsoft has gone and bundled it with one of their products they might also find that their potential market has shrunk. e.g. it has to be very much better to sell to anyone who already has outlook.
The GPL does not in any way cover internal distribution. This is not the same as public distribution. Making modifications and keeping them within your company, but not releasing the source, is completely uncovered by the GPL.
The GPL applies to distribution to a third party. Which need not equate to public distribution. If you (where "you" can be an individual, corporation or anything else consiered a legal "person") distribute the software only to one other entity only that person/corporation/etc can come back to you asking for the source.
In regards to software that the government funds, the government should NEVER fund proprietary software development
Especially that of foreign corporations...
(except for things which are meant to always be secret, like the US govt's program to predict how radar bounces off of curved surfaces).
This example is basically applied physics, probably already in various journals worldwide. Anyway without the data on materials and structure an RCS analysis program probably isn't that much use for building either stealth aircraft or radar systems to track them.
Actually, this is pretty common in some projects. a couple of the main developers of Apache POI (a java library for creating excel spreadsheets and word docs) will gladly add features/fix bugs/whatever you need immediately if you are willing to pay for it. Matter of fact, one of them has a company that makes its money off of supporting/integrating/improving the software. This is a kick-ass model, it encourages OSS, and rewards developers that are involved with actual money.
Actually it is not that different from the way IT used to work before the idea of proprietary prepackaged software came along. The thing is that there is likely to be something of a complete class of cultures between: The proprietary software salesman with glossy handouts and presentations promising that the software will do all sorts of things and that these should be what you need doing. Compared with the OSS/traditional systems analysis approach of first finding out the requirments then writing/adapting software to fit.
I've seen code from professional programmers and I've seen code from open source programmers and I think everyone needs to realize that there's nothing holy about professional programmers. In fact the open source guys usually seem to be using more advanced techniques.
Since closed source rarely gets looked at by completly different party it can be awful or inefficent without anyone noticing. A "fresh pair of eyes" can sometimes spot things which have been overlooked. There are also such things as "easter eggs" which make their way into proprietary software. Some of which are completly unrelated to the program's supposed function.
Now the Industry might be spreading some lies around about how open source code is buggy and of lower quality than stuff done by the "professionals" but I think that's a load of crap.
There is also nothing to stop an open source programmer being a "professional" even someone more qualified than a proprietary programmer. The latter tends to be anonymous, whereas the former tends to have his or her name obvious.
As far as the license issue, if I were in charge of a government (or other) agency, I would demand access to the source code of the work I'd commissioned.
Also that the "access" included your own copy...
Big IT companies might fear that because if their code made it out into the world, they would have commit seppku from the embarassment of the code quality or having some wise-ass kid releasing a much-improved version.
Another possible fear would be accusations of copyright infringement. Proprietary software can hide pirated code just as easily as it can hide bad code.
The only way a dual license would work is if mr. slick salesman wants to use the GPL'ed software because it accomplishes 90% of what the customer is demanding. So he takes that code, adds in the extra 10% required, but then doesn't want to redistribute the changes.
Even if they didn't duel licence they only entity they need supply the code to their changes to that customer. Where things could start to get complex though is if they then want to use part of that code in a different project for another customer.
As a sole proprietor I've worked two years on a fairly sophisticated aviation simulation program that has usages in planning new airports and in airspace changes.
I would like to make my project GPLed.
Unfortunately, there are companies much more politically connected than I am that would absolutely love to take the code, go to the government official that they have in their hip pocket and sell it to them.
How exactly does your program being GPLed make it any more likely to be pirated? The GPL only obliges you to supply the source to the same people you supply the binaries to. The risk you describe appears to be much the same if you were to make the software publically available (in either source or binary form). Whatever licence you might put on it, since someone pirating your software isn't going to take notice of the licence in the first place.
So the interesting question is wheter fireing a missile containing a GPL'ed binary counts as distibution...
If the software makes it to the destination intact then your enemy probably could request the source code. (Assuming they actually wanted the code for a dud missile.) Since the idea of a missile is to blow up both itself and the target up, should it actually work there would be no binary and no-one to ask for the source code.
Thus the MI-5, CIA,CSIS, Interpol, or whatever can freely develop their own internal software under the GPL, and deploy it throughout their systems. The requirement to include source only applies if they distribute the product. I expect intelligence agencies don't normally distribute sensitive software outside the agency.
Assuming the software itself is sensitive at all. The really sensitive stuff is likely to be the data which that software acts on. With open source things are quite clear youown your data. With some proprietary software the EULA can claim ownership of your data. If you are an intelligence agency you don't want some corporation (especially a foreign one) claiming they have any kind of ownership over your sensitive data.
I couldn't care less about what anyone does with code they own the rights to distribute. My concern is that software development firms will not be able to use their million dollar established code bases for typical government projects because they will be forced to open the source for the project and the value of the project will likely not exceed the invested value of the code base.
Just because it cost them X to create a proprietary code base does not actually mean that that code base is actually worth X (or even that it is worth anything at all). Anyway they don't have to relicence all their proprietary code, just that they wish to use for the specific project. They can still use the entire GPL, BSD, PD, etc code bases. What this does do is increase the number of posible contractors since those with small even non-existant proprietary code bases are on an equal footing with those with masses of proprietary code.
Restricting government contracts to BSD and GNU style licenses greatly and uneccessarily reduces software development options.
Excluding GPL software vastly restricts the codebase available for development. Excluding proprietary software also excludes all sorts of complex licencing systems and legal minefields (both in the short and long terms).
Also, let's look at this from the perspective of a government agency. If the IRS is commissioning some specialized data entry software for digitizing snail mail tax returns, do they really and truly need the full source to that application?
Yes they do, otherwise there is no easy way to debug it or change it when the requirments change. e.g. if the tax form is changed or some previously rare section starts to be used more often. If they didn't have the source they are totally at the mercy of some external entity. Who might take an excesive amount of time or charge an extortionate amount for a minor change. Where the customer has the source they can have changes handled in house or multiple quotes can be gathered from external entities before any work is done.
Oh, right... Because the GPL doesn't allow proprietary derivatives, making it difficult for a company to sell me shrink-wrapped EULA-encumbered versions of the software my tax dollars already paid for.
What proportion of people and corporations are actually in the business of selling proprietary software licences? (Which also increase the TCO for the customer who needs to administer them.) How many of these are actually relient on the proprietary software busines model? For how many of these is the proprietary software model a handicap? (In the latter case I'm thinking of suppliers of custom systems. Who have additional costs of both dealing with proprietary software licencing, including development tools, and who have to think up complex licencing schemes for their customers.)
So what you're really saying is not that companies can't benefit from GPL software, but can't profit.
There are probably more companies using software than supplying it. GPL could easily benefit them by pushing their software costs down and producing better quality software.
Easily. From traditional software sales models.
e.g. by selling their time and expertise. Which works perfectly fine for many other industries.
Due to its draconian viral characteristics, GPL software is open for use by only a subset of those who paid for the development of the software, namely the GNU and GNU/Linux community.
Membership of the "community" being open to anyone. Not some kind of exclusive club.
If the government wanted to release a derivative product (which they won't) they can take it up with the original author to release it under a different license if they so desire.
Most software end users, be they individuals, corporations or government departments are simply not in the busines of distributing software. The point of the software is that it's part of their "infrastructure".
While these goals MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the BSD license and MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the public domain, the GPL specifically DOES always promote and advance these goals. And yes, it does so at the expense of those private individuals and corporations who wish for whatever reason to produce and distribute derivative works.
Actually the only people it could be at the expense of those entities who want to produce proprietary software and licence it to their customers. Nothing stops anyone actually selling copies of GPL code or providing systems which use GPL code. For the latter the GPL can be an advantage. Since they can use any GPL code they can find in order to get things finished as quickly/cheaply as possible. Which makes their customers happier and more likely to choose the same supplier in future.
I know exactly what the GPL says, and I am deliberately using the generic word "use" instead of breaking it down into "derive", "redistribute", "run a binary version of", etc. But you will notice that I usually say "use the code", the implication being that I am referring to the derivation and redistribution of the code.
In other words you are using an ambiguious term and assuming that everyone will magically guess the specific meaning you have in mind.
The point is that there should be no such restriction in the license, I should be able to do whatever I want with the code, be that just running a binary version of, deriving a work from or redistributing. If the license dictates how I can "use" the code it is not a free license: it is a contract. To me there is no difference between a license which says "thou shalt not redistribute without releasing source" and one which says "thou shalt not use this code to make baby mulchers"
In which case either you cannot "use" other people's code or you need to find every copyright holder and negotiate with them (or their representatives) for permission to "use" their code in some way they have not previously approved.
I can't "use" either of them without hiring a team of lawyers to figure out what I am allowed to do. I can't afford a team of contract lawyers, so I can't use the code at all.
In which case you have 2 choices. Public domain code or your own original code.
GPL allows anyone to "use" the software. it is in redistribution of, and derivation from, that software, that the requirement to also GPL the changes you make arises.
You cannot distribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL gives you permission to distribute subject to certain conditions.
if you want to continue conflating "use" and "derive", then that's your business; no one else can make you see the difference except yourself.
A bit like the way proprietary software EULA attempt to blur the distinction between "use" and "distribute". With a GPL program you can use or alter it to your heart's content. (Where "you" can be an individual, a corporation, a department of government, etc). The conditions of the GPL apply when you distribute to a third party.
No it does not. You aren't required to let anyone use your park at all. You can put a 10 metre electric fence around it and charge $10,000,000 for entry if you like. However, since your park is a modified version of the original park, if you do let someone use your park, you have to allow them to make their own park based on yours.
Anyone you let in is also entitled to ask you for a copy of the plans for your park. But you don't have to give them to anyone else. Of course your park had better be worth the enterance fee or no-one will bother visiting it.
IBM wants to capitalize on those special use systems that OSS will never make because not enough people are interested in making. Government software may definately be one of them, I'm not talking about your average secretary office pack but real custom made stuff, or at least obscure enough you won't find any decent OSS alternative on Linux, or any alternative at all.
If such a system uses GPL derived software then it will be an OSS system. Building such a system should be a good thing for the developer. Since they can freely use any piece of OSS they can find without having to either "re-invent the wheel" or get lawyers involved to handle complex licencing issues. It should also be good news for the customer. Since they can deal with more than one supplier and won't be held hostage if a supplier messes them around or disappears. It's bad news for any supplier for either wants to force a customer to always deal with them or where the supplier wants to be able to be paid for work they didn't actually do. (e.g. sell something they tweaked a bit at a price appropriate to writing from scratch.)
Did you know a custom version of windows runs the MTA MetroCard vending machines? Yes, they can run it on linux or whatever, but who do they pay to make it interface in certain ways?
Whichever entity it is who requires it to do that. In the example the vending machine manufacturer. The difference is if they use proprietary software they need to pay all sorts of end user and modification licences on top of the work required.
Slashdot Mirror
If the patent mentioned lasers (albeint by description, rather than by name) in 1957 then by Jove, that's worth a patent.
The MASER was invented before then. The only difference between a MASAR and a LASER is the frequency of the EM radiation.
The advantages of using collimated and coherent light over other light sources in a chamical reaction are great, and certinally non-obvious back then.
It's long been known that "light" can affect chemical reactions. e.g. photography.
The idea that monochromatic light would be best for catalysing a specific reaction probably crossed someone's mind as soon as the "photon model" was accepted.
I don't think the idea would have been so obvious to an undergrad in *1957* or *1964* which is when the patents were filed... it's not the patent holders fault these patents weren't actually granted until 1987 and 1992.
IIRC it actually is the patent holder's fault. Since they kept filing ammendments to their applications.
,I>And the really funny bit was that when all these scientists demanded their one dollars, the government had no way to set up the necessary accounts.
Wonder how much it actually cost in paperwork to pay the scientists.
Sounds like you should talk to a lawyer to explain what the GPL actually does. No-one needs to talk to you to use your GPL'd stuff commercially. That fact that they do, means that either those companies dont have competant programmers in your coding area, or they dont have competant lawyers :->
Or that too many people confuse "commercially" with "proprietary".
Actually, If I understand the GPL correctly; they can. They just can't redistribute their changes without revealing their code (and codes). Althought, they can distribute changes (the source code itself) for what changes they don't hold confidential.
What's far more likely to be an issue is confidential data. In which case people would be better advised to closely read proprietary EULAs.
Therein returning work to the community. You can make all the changes you want to GPL code without releasing the code. You just can't release the (new) binaries without contributing it's code also.
Most entities, including government departments are not in the business of distributing software in the first place. Anyway the provisions of the GPL only applies to the specific entities you distribute to. e.g. if you sell GPL software the only people who can ask you for the code are your customers. N.B. the GPL is only concerned with distribution to third parties, not the details of the distribution.
If you're so inclined, you could go into business to try to make money from the software; you could improve the interface, or make it easier to search for partnerships, or whatever. Of course, you must GPL your changes, but you might be the clear leaders in the installation and configuration of this SW, so you could make some money. In any case, whether you can make money or not, the taxpayers do not lose out.
Also since all the changes are GPLed it's rather hard to end up with various versions which are incompatable. Since any supplier can find out how any changes made to it work.
Suppose now that the software is released into the public domain, or even under a BSD licence. Suppose further that half-a-dozen firms spot a market opportunity to improve this project and make a commercial product out of the system. This is fine in principle
Unless you end up with 6 forks of the program which won't interoperate with each other...
but if one of those six firms is Microsoft, we have an immediate problem. MS could decide to integrate the system into MS Outlook; perhaps the system uses email to communicate opportunities. We still have no problem of course, because there are five other competitors, any of whom could come up with a better approach to improving the product.
Since Microsoft has gone and bundled it with one of their products they might also find that their potential market has shrunk. e.g. it has to be very much better to sell to anyone who already has outlook.
The GPL does not in any way cover internal distribution. This is not the same as public distribution. Making modifications and keeping them within your company, but not releasing the source, is completely uncovered by the GPL.
The GPL applies to distribution to a third party. Which need not equate to public distribution. If you (where "you" can be an individual, corporation or anything else consiered a legal "person") distribute the software only to one other entity only that person/corporation/etc can come back to you asking for the source.
In regards to software that the government funds, the government should NEVER fund proprietary software development
Especially that of foreign corporations...
(except for things which are meant to always be secret, like the US govt's program to predict how radar bounces off of curved surfaces).
This example is basically applied physics, probably already in various journals worldwide. Anyway without the data on materials and structure an RCS analysis program probably isn't that much use for building either stealth aircraft or radar systems to track them.
Actually, this is pretty common in some projects. a couple of the main developers of Apache POI (a java library for creating excel spreadsheets and word docs) will gladly add features/fix bugs/whatever you need immediately if you are willing to pay for it. Matter of fact, one of them has a company that makes its money off of supporting/integrating/improving the software. This is a kick-ass model, it encourages OSS, and rewards developers that are involved with actual money.
Actually it is not that different from the way IT used to work before the idea of proprietary prepackaged software came along.
The thing is that there is likely to be something of a complete class of cultures between: The proprietary software salesman with glossy handouts and presentations promising that the software will do all sorts of things and that these should be what you need doing. Compared with the OSS/traditional systems analysis approach of first finding out the requirments then writing/adapting software to fit.
I've seen code from professional programmers and I've seen code from open source programmers and I think everyone needs to realize that there's nothing holy about professional programmers. In fact the open source guys usually seem to be using more advanced techniques.
Since closed source rarely gets looked at by completly different party it can be awful or inefficent without anyone noticing. A "fresh pair of eyes" can sometimes spot things which have been overlooked.
There are also such things as "easter eggs" which make their way into proprietary software. Some of which are completly unrelated to the program's supposed function.
Now the Industry might be spreading some lies around about how open source code is buggy and of lower quality than stuff done by the "professionals" but I think that's a load of crap.
There is also nothing to stop an open source programmer being a "professional" even someone more qualified than a proprietary programmer. The latter tends to be anonymous, whereas the former tends to have his or her name obvious.
As far as the license issue, if I were in charge of a government (or other) agency, I would demand access to the source code of the work I'd commissioned.
Also that the "access" included your own copy...
Big IT companies might fear that because if their code made it out into the world, they would have commit seppku from the embarassment of the code quality or having some wise-ass kid releasing a much-improved version.
Another possible fear would be accusations of copyright infringement. Proprietary software can hide pirated code just as easily as it can hide bad code.
The only way a dual license would work is if mr. slick salesman wants to use the GPL'ed software because it accomplishes 90% of what the customer is demanding. So he takes that code, adds in the extra 10% required, but then doesn't want to redistribute the changes.
Even if they didn't duel licence they only entity they need supply the code to their changes to that customer.
Where things could start to get complex though is if they then want to use part of that code in a different project for another customer.
As a sole proprietor I've worked two years on a fairly sophisticated aviation simulation program that has usages in planning new airports and in airspace changes.
I would like to make my project GPLed.
Unfortunately, there are companies much more politically connected than I am that would absolutely love to take the code, go to the government official that they have in their hip pocket and sell it to them.
How exactly does your program being GPLed make it any more likely to be pirated? The GPL only obliges you to supply the source to the same people you supply the binaries to.
The risk you describe appears to be much the same if you were to make the software publically available (in either source or binary form). Whatever licence you might put on it, since someone pirating your software isn't going to take notice of the licence in the first place.
So the interesting question is wheter fireing a missile containing a GPL'ed binary counts as distibution...
If the software makes it to the destination intact then your enemy probably could request the source code. (Assuming they actually wanted the code for a dud missile.)
Since the idea of a missile is to blow up both itself and the target up, should it actually work there would be no binary and no-one to ask for the source code.
Thus the MI-5, CIA,CSIS, Interpol, or whatever can freely develop their own internal software under the GPL, and deploy it throughout their systems. The requirement to include source only applies if they distribute the product. I expect intelligence agencies don't normally distribute sensitive software outside the agency.
Assuming the software itself is sensitive at all. The really sensitive stuff is likely to be the data which that software acts on.
With open source things are quite clear youown your data. With some proprietary software the EULA can claim ownership of your data. If you are an intelligence agency you don't want some corporation (especially a foreign one) claiming they have any kind of ownership over your sensitive data.
I couldn't care less about what anyone does with code they own the rights to distribute. My concern is that software development firms will not be able to use their million dollar established code bases for typical government projects because they will be forced to open the source for the project and the value of the project will likely not exceed the invested value of the code base.
Just because it cost them X to create a proprietary code base does not actually mean that that code base is actually worth X (or even that it is worth anything at all). Anyway they don't have to relicence all their proprietary code, just that they wish to use for the specific project.
They can still use the entire GPL, BSD, PD, etc code bases. What this does do is increase the number of posible contractors since those with small even non-existant proprietary code bases are on an equal footing with those with masses of proprietary code.
Restricting government contracts to BSD and GNU style licenses greatly and uneccessarily reduces software development options.
Excluding GPL software vastly restricts the codebase available for development. Excluding proprietary software also excludes all sorts of complex licencing systems and legal minefields (both in the short and long terms).
Also, let's look at this from the perspective of a government agency. If the IRS is commissioning some specialized data entry software for digitizing snail mail tax returns, do they really and truly need the full source to that application?
Yes they do, otherwise there is no easy way to debug it or change it when the requirments change. e.g. if the tax form is changed or some previously rare section starts to be used more often.
If they didn't have the source they are totally at the mercy of some external entity. Who might take an excesive amount of time or charge an extortionate amount for a minor change.
Where the customer has the source they can have changes handled in house or multiple quotes can be gathered from external entities before any work is done.
Oh, right... Because the GPL doesn't allow proprietary derivatives, making it difficult for a company to sell me shrink-wrapped EULA-encumbered versions of the software my tax dollars already paid for.
What proportion of people and corporations are actually in the business of selling proprietary software licences? (Which also increase the TCO for the customer who needs to administer them.)
How many of these are actually relient on the proprietary software busines model? For how many of these is the proprietary software model a handicap? (In the latter case I'm thinking of suppliers of custom systems. Who have additional costs of both dealing with proprietary software licencing, including development tools, and who have to think up complex licencing schemes for their customers.)
So what you're really saying is not that companies can't benefit from GPL software, but can't profit.
There are probably more companies using software than supplying it. GPL could easily benefit them by pushing their software costs down and producing better quality software.
Easily. From traditional software sales models.
e.g. by selling their time and expertise. Which works perfectly fine for many other industries.
Due to its draconian viral characteristics, GPL software is open for use by only a subset of those who paid for the development of the software, namely the GNU and GNU/Linux community.
Membership of the "community" being open to anyone. Not some kind of exclusive club.
If the government wanted to release a derivative product (which they won't) they can take it up with the original author to release it under a different license if they so desire.
Most software end users, be they individuals, corporations or government departments are simply not in the busines of distributing software. The point of the software is that it's part of their "infrastructure".
While these goals MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the BSD license and MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the public domain, the GPL specifically DOES always promote and advance these goals. And yes, it does so at the expense of those private individuals and corporations who wish for whatever reason to produce and distribute derivative works.
Actually the only people it could be at the expense of those entities who want to produce proprietary software and licence it to their customers.
Nothing stops anyone actually selling copies of GPL code or providing systems which use GPL code. For the latter the GPL can be an advantage. Since they can use any GPL code they can find in order to get things finished as quickly/cheaply as possible. Which makes their customers happier and more likely to choose the same supplier in future.
I know exactly what the GPL says, and I am deliberately using the generic word "use" instead of breaking it down into "derive", "redistribute", "run a binary version of", etc. But you will notice that I usually say "use the code", the implication being that I am referring to the derivation and redistribution of the code.
In other words you are using an ambiguious term and assuming that everyone will magically guess the specific meaning you have in mind.
The point is that there should be no such restriction in the license, I should be able to do whatever I want with the code, be that just running a binary version of, deriving a work from or redistributing. If the license dictates how I can "use" the code it is not a free license: it is a contract. To me there is no difference between a license which says "thou shalt not redistribute without releasing source" and one which says "thou shalt not use this code to make baby mulchers"
In which case either you cannot "use" other people's code or you need to find every copyright holder and negotiate with them (or their representatives) for permission to "use" their code in some way they have not previously approved.
I can't "use" either of them without hiring a team of lawyers to figure out what I am allowed to do. I can't afford a team of contract lawyers, so I can't use the code at all.
In which case you have 2 choices. Public domain code or your own original code.
GPL allows anyone to "use" the software. it is in redistribution of, and derivation from, that software, that the requirement to also GPL the changes you make arises.
You cannot distribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL gives you permission to distribute subject to certain conditions.
if you want to continue conflating "use" and "derive", then that's your business; no one else can make you see the difference except yourself.
A bit like the way proprietary software EULA attempt to blur the distinction between "use" and "distribute".
With a GPL program you can use or alter it to your heart's content. (Where "you" can be an individual, a corporation, a department of government, etc). The conditions of the GPL apply when you distribute to a third party.
No it does not. You aren't required to let anyone use your park at all. You can put a 10 metre electric fence around it and charge $10,000,000 for entry if you like. However, since your park is a modified version of the original park, if you do let someone use your park, you have to allow them to make their own park based on yours.
Anyone you let in is also entitled to ask you for a copy of the plans for your park. But you don't have to give them to anyone else.
Of course your park had better be worth the enterance fee or no-one will bother visiting it.
IBM wants to capitalize on those special use systems that OSS will never make because not enough people are interested in making. Government software may definately be one of them, I'm not talking about your average secretary office pack but real custom made stuff, or at least obscure enough you won't find any decent OSS alternative on Linux, or any alternative at all.
If such a system uses GPL derived software then it will be an OSS system. Building such a system should be a good thing for the developer. Since they can freely use any piece of OSS they can find without having to either "re-invent the wheel" or get lawyers involved to handle complex licencing issues. It should also be good news for the customer. Since they can deal with more than one supplier and won't be held hostage if a supplier messes them around or disappears.
It's bad news for any supplier for either wants to force a customer to always deal with them or where the supplier wants to be able to be paid for work they didn't actually do. (e.g. sell something they tweaked a bit at a price appropriate to writing from scratch.)
Did you know a custom version of windows runs the MTA MetroCard vending machines? Yes, they can run it on linux or whatever, but who do they pay to make it interface in certain ways?
Whichever entity it is who requires it to do that. In the example the vending machine manufacturer.
The difference is if they use proprietary software they need to pay all sorts of end user and modification licences on top of the work required.
But, as I've said, it's no news. Recently, U.S. Gov. has put huge barriers against steel from others, more competitive countries (Brazil, E.U., etc.).
Another good example is Canadian lumber.