What exactly are the rules for using gpl, lgpl, bsd software interally in the enterprise?

Question

Are there any restrictions of using lgpl, gpl, bsd licensed software in a commercial venture if the tools/software are only used as part of internal processes and not integrated or incorporated into any software / product that is being sold.

i.e. if we used open source media converter software to convert someones voicemail from .mov to .mp3 and made changes to the open source software, would we need to publish the changes even though it's only being used internally to remain compliant with the licenses?

Answer 1

As long as you're not using AGPL software, you basically don't need to worry about the redistribution clauses.

For the GPL, your requirements are to distribute the source, or make it available, for anyone to which you distribute a binary copy. If you are only using the software internally, you're generally in the clear.

A very important point Eric J. brought up is that to be in perfect compliance you MUST license all the appropriate audio patents. Open source has been notoriously fillipant about these issues in the past because they generally only apply to the US, and are only observed by excruciatingly honest people. If you're using one of the TRULY free codecs like vorbis or FLAC, you're in the clear. If you're doing anything that is patent encumbered, you must get licenses. From your question, you talk about transcoding .mov to mp3. At the very least, you need to purchase a license to use United States Patent 5,579,430 from Fraunhofer. I expect whatever's inside the .mov container is probably similarly encumbered.

The really sad truth of the matter is, your odds of getting proper licenses for any given transcoding/playback solution are probably no better than 50/50 if you're not dealing directly with the patent holders.

You STILL don't have a problem with the GPL and associated open source licenses, but if you don't license the codecs you're using, you'll be in technical violation of a whole different set of laws.

Answer 2

You have to ask your lawyers. There may well be implications concerning, for example, your right to work on some piece of proprietary software that's related in its functionality to some third-party free software whose source you've seen. There's no general answer, other than YOU MUST ASK YOUR LAWYER.

Answer 3

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

From the bsdnewsletter.com explanation of the BSD license:

The only requirements of the BSD license are preservation of copyright and a standard disclaimer of liability. Due to its minimal license, BSD software can be freely modified and used in proprietary or commercial software.

Answer 4

Here are some things I think I know:

• BSD: there are no serious restrictions on what you can do with it.
• No, internal changes need not be published, distributed, or returned to some previous party. If you read the agreements, you see they are primarily a disclaimer and a requirement that you offer to provide source code (and full rights to that source code) to parties to whom you convey the binaries
• I would be careful not to violate the terms of the GPL. It is unusually harsh in that it specifies the penalty for noncompliance: total revocation of rights under the agreement. (Normally, a remedy is not really specified and you can simply correct your violations.)
• You can see a further discussion of internal use of GPL SW in SO question 1622818.

Here are some excerpts from GPLV3:

1. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

   You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

What then follows is a description of how you can provide, or offer to provide, source code. Essentially the GPL requires that you extend the GPL itself to parties to whom you send the SW or binary builds of it, and that you provide, or offer to provide, the source code. If you never ship the SW or the binaries then the source-code provisions of the GPL do not affect you.

Historically, there were serious concerns about exposure to copyrighted code which led to the clean room design, or "Chinese wall" technique. These concerns are presumably minor w.r.t. GPL software, because it has already been published and so presumably has no recourse to trade secret claims. Plus, in your case, they are just tools and unrelated to your end product.

Answer 5

Firstly I Am Not A Lawyer, so this is just an amateur opinion.

This is an awesome question, very important. Why? Because so many people don't want you to know the truth.

There are many companies out there using selling software that you can obtain under the GPL for free. They claim that the GPL'ed version is for "evaluation" purposes and suggest strongly (if they don't state explicitly) that you should use the commercial/premium/supported version if you need to use the software in an commercial setting.

Secondly, closed-source competitors want you to believe you can't safely use GPL'ed software in the enterprise to make their offering more attractive. Spit, spit.

Thirdly (and this is more my take on things), some people in the free software community (some might call them the misinformed hard-liners) don't want you to think you can use free software and not contribute modifications back to the community.

The truth is that the GPL basically states the conditions under which you may distribute the GPL'ed software to other people. This includes distribution in original form or as modified and extended by you. Basically, copyright law prohibits the distribution of the software ipso facto; the GPL then actually gives you the right to distribute the software but only under certain conditions (broadly, that you pass these rights on to whoever you distribute to).

The important point is that the GPL places not restrictions on your use of the software, it only specifies (somewhat stringent, by open-source standards) conditions under which the software (or your modified version of it) may be passed on to others.

Answer 6

Note the "ASP loophole" -- if the sw is GPL and you only allow others access to it via the network (even if you sell access to it): you're fine.

See http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/articles/blog/gpl-v3-no-big-changes-for-users-no-final-answers-for-asps/?cs=17205

Regarding lawyers and when to consult them

That's a business decision. In most companies, the decision on when and how to consult lawyers is made by the business management of the company (marketers and management). -- Since they are the ones on the hook if something goes wrong, eg a lawsuit or just bad publicity.

The number of companies that have in-house legal staff with an IP (intellectual property) practice background is very very small. So that means that any real consultation will be with an outside firm and cost major money. (The in-house lawyers are typically contract law folks.)

But management and marketing people make risk decisions everyday: "Should feature x be in the product or not?" "How much should we charge?" They can decide that their understanding of the GPL is sufficient for them to take the risk that their understanding is incorrect. (Or that someone else thinks that their understanding is incorrect and decides to sue them. Remember that everyone has the right to sue anyone in the US, you just may not win.)

My advice as someone who has made plenty of such decisions: if it is your job to make business decisions, then make a decision. A decision to consult someone with more experience or expertise is a fine decision but is not a necessary one, depending on your own level of experience and expertise.

But if you're not paid to make business decisions and to take risks, then don't. Instead, talk it over with whomever. Let him or her make the decision and decide how to proceed. You'll have your own information to add, eg "We can use GPL code for this internal project and save 4 months of person-effort and time." and "Here are articles or books that say clearly there is no legal downsides to using GPL code for an internal project." NB. SO, blog and Wikipedia articles are ok but are usually not considered authoritative.

If the decision isn't the one you'd like, then go find work elsewhere. Or get yourself promoted into a job where you'll make the business decisions. Not following a decision is an excellent way to get fired. Also, not asking the right person to make an important decision is also a good way to get fired. You should act as a professional, that includes consulting and relying on others as appropriate.

If you're paid to architect / create software then you are probably not the person who should decide whether a business decision should be run by a lawyer or not.