GPL: Organizations Shielding Modified Source from Employees -- Potential Gray Area?

[JPM III]

The GPL does not require an individual or an organization to release the
source code of any modified GPL software if the software is not released
outside of the organization. The key is that the GPL allows the user to use
and/or modify GPL software freely; redistribution terms apply only if the
user chooses to redistribute the modified work.



A potential gray area arises here, which is addressed by this question: If
an organization is not required to release source code of the modified but
unreleased GPL software, then is the organization also allowed to shield the
source code from its own employees?



My instincts tell me the answer is yes, but only because the organization is
not (yet) distributing the modified software to the outside world. Then
again, because the employees are part of the organization, I wonder if that
automatically entitles them to the source code of the organization's
modified software per the GPL.



Your thoughts are most welcome.

[Isaac]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:34:40 -0400, JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote: The GPL does not require an individual or an organization to release the source code of any modified GPL software if the software is not released outside of the organization. The key is that the GPL allows the user to use and/or modify GPL software freely; redistribution terms apply only if the user chooses to redistribute the modified work. A potential gray area arises here, which is addressed by this question: If an organization is not required to release source code of the modified but unreleased GPL software, then is the organization also allowed to shield the source code from its own employees?

I think this has been discussed here a number of times. I think most
people believe that the employess are not entitled to the source code or
to distribute binaries or source unless authorized by the organization.

Isaac

[JPM III]

> > The GPL does not require an individual or an organization to release the source code of any modified GPL software if the software is not released outside of the organization. The key is that the GPL allows the user to
use and/or modify GPL software freely; redistribution terms apply only if
the user chooses to redistribute the modified work. A potential gray area arises here, which is addressed by this question:
If an organization is not required to release source code of the modified
but unreleased GPL software, then is the organization also allowed to shield
the source code from its own employees? I think this has been discussed here a number of times. I think most people believe that the employess are not entitled to the source code or to distribute binaries or source unless authorized by the organization.

Thanks. I have not been here very long, and I only noticed that it has not
been addressed on the Copyleft web site. Some official word from the FSF
would be nice.

[JPM III]

> > A potential gray area arises here, which is addressed by this question:
If an organization is not required to release source code of the modified
but unreleased GPL software, then is the organization also allowed to shield
the source code from its own employees? I think this has been discussed here a number of times. I think most people believe that the employess are not entitled to the source code or to distribute binaries or source unless authorized by the organization.

Also, the question was, do they even have access to the source, or can the
organization deny them such access?

[Isaac]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:55:32 -0400, JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote: A potential gray area arises here, which is addressed by this question: If an organization is not required to release source code of the modified but unreleased GPL software, then is the organization also allowed to shield the source code from its own employees? I think this has been discussed here a number of times. I think most people believe that the employess are not entitled to the source code or to distribute binaries or source unless authorized by the organization. Also, the question was, do they even have access to the source, or can the organization deny them such access?

IMO, they can be denied access.

Isaac

[David Kastrup]

"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> writes:
The GPL does not require an individual or an organization to release the source code of any modified GPL software if the software is not released outside of the organization. The key is that the GPL allows the user to use and/or modify GPL software freely; redistribution terms apply only if the user chooses to redistribute the modified work. A potential gray area arises here, which is addressed by this question: If an organization is not required to release source code of the modified but unreleased GPL software, then is the organization also allowed to shield the source code from its own employees?

Sure is. A company does not need to (and could not) sublicense all of
the other software in its house to its employees, so it certainly does
not need to sublicense GPLed software.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

[JPM III]

> > Is this the official position of the Free Software Foundation, or your interpretation given that the FSF has not issued an official position on this issue? It is common sense and obvious. If you have any questions concerning the GPL, why don't you just take a look at the GPL FAQ at <URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>. I seem to remember this is addressed in there.

I read the FAQ in its entirety for the umpteenth time again last night,
particular to address this issue. It is not addressed. This is why I brought
the issue here.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <bfjpng$f9tdp$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de>,
JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote: Is this the official position of the Free Software Foundation, or your interpretation given that the FSF has not issued an official position on this issue? It is common sense and obvious. If you have any questions concerning the GPL, why don't you just take a look at the GPL FAQ at <URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>. I seem to remember this is addressed in there.I read the FAQ in its entirety for the umpteenth time again last night,particular to address this issue. It is not addressed. This is why I broughtthe issue here.

How about:

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company
"distribution"?

No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for
itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a
modified version and install that version through its own facilities,
without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to
outsiders.

If this isn't considered distribution, then none of the requirements in the
GPL apply. So hiding the source code from employees can't be considered a
violation of the GPL.

--
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

[JPM III]

> How about: Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop
a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version
to outsiders. If this isn't considered distribution, then none of the requirements in
the GPL apply. So hiding the source code from employees can't be considered a violation of the GPL.


Okay. So being a part of the organization that holds the rights over the
unreleased software does not entitle them to the source code any more than
they are entitled to reasonable expectations of privacy over company phones.
I see, says the blind man.

[JPM III]

> >Huh? Do you think an organization can obtain one copy of a book andmake copies for all its employees without it being considereddistribution? It's copying, but not redistribution.

The GPL allows this type of copying within an organization, whereas a
copyright holder of a book (or anything else that is not copylefted) would
restrict the right to copy the book.