Re: GPL and inhouse use?

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <heqdnYnEVrOyaPvZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Eric  <nospam@email.com> wrote:

>If i start off with a copy of the 2.4 linux kernel downloaded from
>kernel.org and then modify it (a lot) and only use it "in house" and dont
>release it (give away or sell) in any form to the general public or any
>other entity outside my company, does the GPL require me to publish my
>source code to the world?

No.

The GPL only comes into effect when you distribute. If you do not distribute,
then the GPL doesn't come into effect.

Now out of curiosity, what types of modifications (in general terms) would
you consider making that you wouldn't want to share?

Again just curious. I continually try to figure out why the vast majority
of the posts in this newsgroup are targeted with somehow circumventing the
GPL's concept of sharing. It's as if there's some compulsion from the free
software community forcing folks to use free software and then to abide
by its rules.

Why is there this "I want to get something for nothing." mentality? Nothing
in life is truly free. Everything has strings attached. What's so terrible
about a resonably fair string that states that you must give everyone the
same rights that were given to you?

Eric you've found the one instance where the GPL doesn't have that compulsion.

But I'm curious about all the others.

BAJ