Re: GPL and inhouse use?

[Gordon Burditt]

>> That's true in the direct sense. However, there can be a impetus for it
>> to occur indirectly because the GPL gives anyone you transfer the code to
>> the right not only to modify it, but to distribute it as they see fit.
>
>Yes of course, but the OP seems to suffer from the common delusion that the
>GPL requires that you actively publish the code.

Believe it or not, I have seen licenses (definitely not GPL!  but
like what Microsoft wants you to think the GPL is) which require
you to distribute copies to at least 10 other people, obtain their
signatures on a copy of the license, and send the signed forms back
to the author BEFORE YOU are allowed to use the code.  I call it
the "chain-letter license".  The license also required that if you
found a bug, you had to fix it and send the fix back to the author.

                                                Gordon L. Burditt