Re: GPL again (was IFS in RPG)

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John Taylor wrote:
> Hans,
>>As pointed out before, if you use GPL code in your project, it only
>>becomes an issue if you want to distribute the application.  For
>>strictly in-house use, it should not be an issue.
>
> I think it is an issue. Perhaps not from the developers point of view, but
> certainly from the owners.
>
> It seems to be clear (see my response to Buck) that by including GPL code
> within a software system, one is agreeing to license the entire system under
> the GPL. Perhaps they choose not to distibute it, but that doesn't change
> the fact that it now becomes GPL. For all intents and purposes, what one is
> doing here is devaluing an significant asset of the corporation/employer.
> Should the corporation ever be put up for sale, how will the loss of this
> asset affect the value to the buyer?

OK, let's look at this another way.  Let's say your in-house
application used some commercial 3rd party service program.  In such
a case, you would still be held hostage to the licensing terms of
that service program.  The "significant asset" of the company would
be "devalued" under those terms as well.  Just as a commercial
package has an associated cost, GPL'ed software has it's costs.

BTW, just because your whole application falls under the GPL,
there's no reason you can't still make money off it.  There's also
money to be made from training and support.

Looking at the issue from another angle, it's only an issue if there
is the desire to distribute the software.  But for many in-house
applications, the asset is valuable to the company for the simple
reason that the company has that software and its competitors do not.

Cheers!  Hans