On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Raj Mathur<r...@linux-delhi.org> wrote: > On Friday 28 Aug 2009, Anupam Jain wrote: >> However I wonder about the proprietary compiler itself. if it's based >> on GCC, it needs to be licensed under GPL, even if it's distributed >> in-house. So any developer who works for this company and has lawful >> access to the executable can demand the sources and then distribute >> these sources to the general public under GPL. > > Nope. Distribution is specifically deemed to be to III-parties, not > within an organisation. If your company is using a proprietary version > of a GPL software in-house, you as an employee cannot demand the sources > since the software has not been distributed to you.
This makes me realise that my understanding of "distribution" as defined by the GPL is not as clear as I thought. But then again, perhaps it is the license itself that is ambiguous and the meaning of "distribution" depends on how it is interpreted by the local courts. -- Anupam _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
