Hacker News Reader

Comment by e3bc54b2 | Hacker News Reader

On the contrary, as a developer, this makes GPL even more appealing to me.

I don't have time, money or energy to sue someone for using my code and not giving back.

But if downstream users can, and the math changes.

True. As a original developer of code, it protects the original author and the real user. However the middlemen (companies who make money using others code) may not like this.

Someone could "use your code and not give back" while staying perfectly within the limits of the GPL, though. For example, they could use and modify your software in an internal package.

This is something that's always been slightly unclear to me. I think you should be able to do whatever with any copyrighted code that's been published (by someone who has the right to do so) for your own personal use, regardless of license. Clearly publishing this copyrighted is not possible without some kind of license.

However where 'personal use' ends and 'publishing copyrighted code' begins is not entirely clear to me. Does an internal tool in a company still count?

> Does an internal tool in a company still count?

I would think so, yes. If I take a piece of information and do something to it inside my house, that's my business. If I show it to my friend, it's between him and me. If it let my coworkers see it so that they can only see it within the office, it's between them and me. And so on. The only issue would arise if an employee asked to see the source of such an internal tool and was denied.

The FSF FAQ explicitly states that internal use within a corporation does not count as distribution. It's one legal entity and can't violate copyleft on its own. A gray area would be a subsidiary or joint venture sharing with a parent.

That's really interesting, because if a corporation bought a physical book, scanned it, and distributed it internally that would be a clear violation of copyright law.

GPL is copyleft (copies authorized by default) until you violate the terms. Then normal copyright law applies and it's the same as an unauthorized book copy.

> The FSF FAQ explicitly states that internal use within a corporation does not count as distribution.

It's probably a good thing on balance since it's one less barrier to companies using code under the license, but considering companies and their assets (including their internal tools) can be bought and sold, I'd personally consider that distribution enough.

Your reasoning suggests the terms of the copyright license do apply when used as an internal tool (you'd be free to keep the code hidden otherwise) in which case preventing anyone from publishing any work derived from code under a copyleft license seems impossible. At the very least the GPL doesn't seem to allow you to create a derived work and require people to keep it secret even if it's just internal to the office (though I guess they could keep it secret willingly, I just see no way to legally compel them).

This seems different from something that's purely personal use. I don't think it makes much sense to force a program to show a notice its GPL licensed if you're the only one using it for instance. In fact that seems to run counter to the intent of free software.

It's possible that legal systems treat this situation differently, but I think it makes far more sense if you don't need an additional license to use stuff that's already published by the copyright holder until what you're doing starts to go beyond just personal use.

Of course; those are freedoms 0 and 1 guaranteed by the license. It seems like "use" sometimes means "include in a downstream software package and redistribute modified versions of".

My point is that just having the GPL doesn't guarantee that modifications will be contributed back or published, even without violating the license.

Right, GPL only requires contributing forward, to the downstream users. It is only through creating a culture of working upstream and or reaching out to downstream redistributors that a project gets any contributions back, including financial contributions.

Yes, and that's good. Internal use is different from redistribution.

The important point is to prevent freeloaders from taking credit from your work [and sometime even competing against you].

In the old model in that case you could assign or work with any of the litigation groups already doing the work needed to allow them to sue on your behalf.

Downstream users can also of course sue you if you work on a project with a few other people under the GPL even if they didn't write any code or contribute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com