On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:01:09PM -0600, Andrew Jorgensen wrote: > On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 14:39, Michael Halcrow wrote: > > IANAL. These are my own musings on the GPL and what not. > > > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 05:17:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >Of course, the final product will have to be licensed as an Open > > > >Source project. > > > > > > I don't think so. I think that the GPL only requires releasing > > > modifications to open-source projects if you sell the software. > > > > If the product incorporates GPL code (according to the dictates of the > > license), the resulting product will have to be licensed under the > > GPL, or the authors will be in violation of the copyrights of those > > whose code was incorporated into the product. > > I'm afraid I have to agree with Mr Byrd: > > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of > it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute > such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided > that you also meet all of these conditions: > .. > b) You must cause _any work that you distribute or publish_, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part > thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties > under the terms of this License. > > So it really sounds to me like in-house code that is never distributed > or published doesn't have to be GPL. You can modify it - and because you > don't distribute or publish your modifications you don't have to license > those modifications as GPL.
As I sat back and thought about this a bit more, I realized that even if the GPL did require you to license undistributed derived works under the GPL, it would, by definition, have no effect, because the GPL cannot be violated. Only copyright can be violated. If the data never gets distributed then copyright does not even apply. Like I said, IANAL, but you had better make darn sure that you do not do anything that remotely looks like ``distributing'' or ``publishing,'' even if it involves just one other party. Lawyers are very good at finding creative interpretations for these words. BTW, if I were the third party who pays you, I would demand that I get the source that I pay you to write, in which case it will need to be licensed under the GPL. I suppose what I'm really trying to say is, when it comes to the GPL, tread very lightly; do not try to make too liberal an interpretation of it, or you may get bitten. Talk to your lawyer. :-) Mike
pgpKetQ00FOAT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
