Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Derek Balling]

But we're not as concerned with the "distribute source" requirement as we 
are about the "redistributable" nature of the item in question.

For example:

1.) I get "app A" (licensed under the GPL) from the web. I modify it (make 
it faster, say), and I put it on all our servers nationwide. I put a 
restriction "for internal use only" on the modified form.

2.) Can some other employee, in another one of my company's offices, see 
that the "for internal use only" clause isn't provided for in the GPL, and 
redistribute the modified package to a more public audience.

The GPL doesn't seem to explicitly allow me to restrict its flow, so 
regardless of whether or not he has a job tomorrow for violating company 
policies, the legality is such that I don't think they could actually bust 
him on a copyright violation, since any modifications/derivative works HAD 
to be under the GPL as well, granting him the right to redistribute the code.

Thoughts?

D

At 02:12 PM 9/22/99 +0000, bruce at perens.com wrote:
>Currently, if you do not distribute a GPL binary, you need not distribute
>source. RMS was musing at one point about requiring distributed source for
>a binary that gets "public performance" (which he can do under basic copyright
>law), but this does not exist in the current GPL.
>
>         Thanks
>
>         Bruce