GPL code allowing non-GPL local copies of nondistributed code

Posted by Jason Posit on Programmers See other posts from Programmers or by Jason Posit
Published on 2013-06-24T10:43:12Z Indexed on 2013/06/24 16:36 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 469

Filed under:

gpl

I have come across a book that claims that alterations and augmentations to GPL works can be kept close-source as long as these are not redistributed into the wild. Therefore, customizations of websites deriving from GPL packages need not be released under the GPL and developers can earn profit on them by offering their services to their clients while keeping their GPL-based code closed source at the same time.

(cf. Chapter 17 of WordPress Plugin Development by Wrox Press).

I've never realized this, but essentially, by putting restrictions on redistributable code the GPL says nothing about what can and cannot be done with code which is kept private in terms of the licensing model.

Have I understood this correctly?

Related posts about gpl

GPL code allowing non-GPL local copies of nondistributed code

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I have come across a book that claims that alterations and augmentations to GPL works can be kept close-source as long as these are not redistributed into the wild. Therefore, customizations of websites deriving from GPL packages need not be released under the GPL and developers can earn profit on… >>> More
Licensing software that uses GPL code with licenses other than GPL

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Let's say I write some code, which we'll call X. It uses some GPL code, let's call it library Y. Clearly I would have to release X with a GPL license. That's fine. My question is, can I additionally release X under a license such as MIT, so that if someone only wants X but not Y they don't need to… >>> More
Does using GCC specific builtins qualify as incorporation within a project?

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I understand that linking to a program licensed under the GPL requires that you release the source of your program under the GPL as well, while the LGPL does not require this. The terminology of the (L)GPL is very clear about this. #include "gpl_program.h" means you'd have to license GPL, because… >>> More
"Integratable" but not "integrated" GPL

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
There has been much debate over whether or not merely linking to a piece of code makes it a derivative work. I know FSF says "yes", so according to them I can't dynamically link a non-GPL compatible program to a GPL library and distribute the whole. But I could do that for private use, as long as… >>> More
GPL: does one line of GPLed code make program a "derived work"

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I've recently run into some argument with a person that claims to be a lawyer (I have my suspicions about this not being completely true, though). As far as I know, copying even one line of code from GPLed program into proprietary body of code requires you to release the whole thing under GPL, if… >>> More

Developer IT