Re: GPL and inhouse use?

[Eric]

Merijn de Weerd wrote:

> On 2006-05-14, Eric <nospam@email.com> wrote:
>> Well, suppose, hypothetically, that you added a lot of code to the
>> kernel/base distribution, stripped out some of the base distribution
>> stuff (like X or whaever) too in order to create a really robust and
>> unique testing environment for testing new computer systems. You'd want
>> to keep that inhouse to prevent your competition from gaining the same
>> advantage that you just worked months or years to create.
> 
> Suppose you add a lot of code to implement a really robust and
> unique embedded software stack that makes a great product. You'd
> want to keep that proprietary to prevent your competition from
> gaining the same advantage that you just worked months or years to
> create. Yet, you have to share if you build upon GPL software.
> The same should apply to the in-house environment you describe.
> 
> About the only real justification I can think of is when
> the code simply isn't ready for release. You don't want to
> be forced to publish every interim release or internal beta.
> 
> Merijn
> 
so its basically "if i modify any gpl'd code I must give away my changes
whether or not i keep it 'in-house' "?
Wow, if i have that right, then thats about the very best way i know of to
prevent any company from using a kernel as a base for their own proprietary
needs. Its like saying: Here's a hammer and some nails, do what you want
with it, but if you build a house you have to build one for your neighbor
too.
 In your example, you left out that your competitor who makes the same
embedded product, just took your 2 years of development efforts and got
them for free while you spent all the up front costs in programmers,
computers, etc to develop it no thanks to him and now you have to just give
it to him? No Way! how is that a good idea? If thats really the way it is,
then a company would be far smarter to pay a license fee up front and own
the base code.
Eric