Real talk: if a company's contractor agreements don't strictly circumscribe how a contractor can only use the company's resources on a limited basis to perform their work on the company's behalf, the GPLv3 is far, far down their list of concerns. Do they also get to keep the rest of the company's code? Their emails? Marketing materials? Laptop? The OS on that laptop?
I've never been tempted to think I had any right whatsoever to my employers' internal materials. That would be a highly unusual, maybe unprecedentedly so, situation.
Except that GPLv3 overrides the contracts. If you violate it, you lose the right to use the GPLv3 software.
Technically, a litigious-happy contractor can use that to cause a lot of damage to the company. So that's why many companies (e.g. Apple) just ban as much GPLv3 software as they can.
you're right; i had a vague memory that they had perhaps included language in the license to clarify questions like this, but apparently not. this is all it says
To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? (#InternalDistribution)
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.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
note that this is talking about gplv2 ('distribution'), so presumably contractors can already sue apple for this if apple uses gplv2 code in internal tools; they might not win, but the fsf thinks they should
Comments
Real talk: if a company's contractor agreements don't strictly circumscribe how a contractor can only use the company's resources on a limited basis to perform their work on the company's behalf, the GPLv3 is far, far down their list of concerns. Do they also get to keep the rest of the company's code? Their emails? Marketing materials? Laptop? The OS on that laptop?
I've never been tempted to think I had any right whatsoever to my employers' internal materials. That would be a highly unusual, maybe unprecedentedly so, situation.
Except that GPLv3 overrides the contracts. If you violate it, you lose the right to use the GPLv3 software.
Technically, a litigious-happy contractor can use that to cause a lot of damage to the company. So that's why many companies (e.g. Apple) just ban as much GPLv3 software as they can.
you're right; i had a vague memory that they had perhaps included language in the license to clarify questions like this, but apparently not. this is all it says
in their faq about gplv2, the fsf explicitly takes the side of your hypothetical 'litigious-happy contractor' https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistrib...
note that this is talking about gplv2 ('distribution'), so presumably contractors can already sue apple for this if apple uses gplv2 code in internal tools; they might not win, but the fsf thinks they should