Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Derek Balling]

This raises an interesting question:  If have a piece of GPL'ed code, and I 
modify it for my internal application, putting it on a number of servers, 
are you saying that just because I installed that modified code on my own 
servers that I have to release it to the world?

Not disagreeing with you, but this has always been, to my understanding, 
something you could do under the GPL, and if its not, then there are 
probably a LOT of places stealthily violating the GPL without even 
realizing it, because that's the way a lot of people have described the 
GPL's functionality in the past.

D


At 02:40 AM 9/22/99 -0400, Justin Wells wrote:

>If my company buys a book, we are not allowed to make 1000 copies of it
>and hand them out free to all employees and shareholders. We have no right
>to make copies of the book for this kind of "internal development".
>
>Why would it be OK to do this with copyrighted software?
>
>Ordinary copyright law does not permit it, and the GPL certainly contains
>no exception for "internal use" or "internal development". It (or is it
>the LGPL?) even goes so far as to say that if you link against GPL material
>in memory, the copy in memory is subject to the GPL even though
>the material you linked with is not.
>
>I trust that Corel IS going to resolve this problem in a fair and friendly
>way, it seems to me to be an honest mistake--everyone makes mistakes, and
>I don't hold any grudge over this.
>
>I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you
>use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from
>the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company.
>
>Justin
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 01:09:56AM -0000, bruce at perens.com wrote:
> > I got a very reassuring phone call from Corel today, I'm confident
> > the problem will be resolved.
> >
> > Regarding your GPL question, I think you could make a case that 
> distribution
> > to your own employee or a contractor is part of internal development, 
> but the
> > beta test agreement doesn't really establish a contractor relationship.
> >
> > Anyway, this is not going to be tested this time.
> >
> >       Thanks
> >
> >       Bruce