Re: GPL interpretation for contracters?

On 25/01/06, Jesse Off <joff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have a couple questions about the GPL.
>
> I work for a company that builds embedded hardware and a customer of ours
> wanted to sell us a patch to a GPL'ed piece of code.  This modification was
> designed and sold to our customer by another Linux service contracter for
> what I guess was a lot of money.  The issue is now moot since we engineered
> our own solution to the problem, but I have found myself somewhat curious as
> to the details of when GPL'ed code must be released to the public.

Let me rephrase your questions:

We have a site license for Windows XP. What is to stop us from
reclassifying our customers as "partners" and supplying them with free
copies of Windows? When I work as a contractor, can I supply copies of
Windows XP to a customer as I am legally employed by them? Does a
developer have to buy a copies of Windows for product development, or
is it ok to use unlicensed copies until we actually ship a product?

Well, the only thing stopping you is copyright law, and the risk that
you'll be sued by a copyright holder. You can advise your customers to
violate copyright without a redistribution license (the GPL), and you
can do it yourself, but if you get caught expect to pay large fines.

Selling GPL code is fine - the GPL explicitly allows this. The only
real requirement is to also provide access to the source. If you
don't, you have no other license to redistribute. The legal issue with
contractors depends on who is employing you - many contractors are
self employed, or employed by a contracting company/agency, and they
bill the customer directly. In this case you really need to release
the source. If you actually become an employee of the customer (rare
because then you get all kinds of legal rights) then there is no
distribution (the product stays within the company) and hence no need
to give up the source. But then you are really an employee of the
company and not an external contractor.