On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 18:57:37 +0530, Kamal R Prasad wrote:

> We are working on a prototype -which may or may not have commercial
> value.  If the prototype is viable -the company charges money from
> others for using the functionality [src code not revealed]. If not,
> we still do not want to give away the src code -but may not earn any
> money in doing so.  The GPL probably makes things difficult in the
> first case, but is equivalent to the BSD license in the 2nd case [ie
> no obligation to reveal the in-house development to anybody]. If
> this isn't the case, pl. clarify.

Well I distinctly remember GPL folks discussing if in-house deployment
*is* a redistribution.  I didn't really follow the discussion, but I
remember the fact of this being discussed.  So your 2nd case is not at
all clear.

That's the problem with GPL (in scenarios like yours), you just can
never be sure if you are violating it or not.  And if some slashdot
poster boy decides on a whim that you do, you have that crowd slinging
mud at you and calling you names, etc.

Sort of like SCO vs. Linux, though it will be Linux vs. you ;)
[Doh, did I just say that?!  How negative of me.]

SY, Uwe
-- 
uwe@ptc.spbu.ru                         |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/            |       Ist zu Grunde gehen