[lug] May 9th talk topics

[Tkil]

>>>>> "DS" == D Stimits <stimits at idcomm.com> writes:

DS> I'd like to know just how much of gpl and lgpl a business can use
DS> internally, not as a product, but just getting the daily job done,
DS> without fear.

someone else has already made some good points, but here are some
other questions to ask, most of which revolving around exactly what
you mean by "use":

 - if you're just using a built product (e.g., a redhat system or
   gcc), then you never even deal with the source code, and it's not
   an issue.  of course you can't rename "gcc" to "my-cc" and try to
   sell it, but you wouldn't do that with microsoft word, either.

 - if you use LGPL libraries as libraries, you should also be fine.
   that's what the LGPL is for.

 - if you use GPL code only internally, you should also be fine.
   (this is very dangerous, however, since the concept of "internally"
   when dealing with a huge multinational is very flimsy.)

 - if you use GPL code in a piece of software, and you want to
   distribute that software, you must distribute that software under
   the GPL.

important things that certain people like to confuse:

 - only the bits of software that use GPL source must be GPLed, not
   everything the company produces.

 - GPL doesn't contaminate in the "needs a clean room reimplement-
   ation" sense.

overall, since i only redistribute software that i write myself, i can
put all of it under the GPL and not worry.  (well, some of it is dual
licensed GPL/Artistic, but that's almost standard with perl modules
and examples.)  when i'm doing software for someone else, i'm very
conscious of what code is coming from where.

as always, i have to disclaim most of this by saying that i'm not a
lawyer.  for all its posturing, the GPL has a pretty straightforward
message: pass on to all users the same rights to the code (examine,
copy, modify, reuse) that you received.  if you pass on code in that
manner, i doubt anyone would ever chase you with a GPL suit.

finally, i think that anyone (person or company) is far more at risk
of being attacked on DMCA or software patent grounds than they are of
running afoul of the GPL.  most GPL violations i've seen seem to be
someone releasing a bundle before the source code is quite cleaned up
and ready to go.  maybe i'm being too nice about it, dunno...

t.