Richard Steiner

Atlanta, GA USA

Lead Analyst/Developer

A company who writes software that is found to include open source code with a mandatory redistribution clause (such as code which is covered by the GPL) is generally not required to reveal their proprietary source code.

This is a myth I've seen propogated on other web site, and it simply is not true.

Instead, it is enough to remove the GPLed code (or other FOSS code whose license is being violated) from the proprietary project -- the project is then not in violation of the FOSS license, and it can continue to be developed and restricted as the company sees fit.

Also, if a company creates proprietary software which incorporates GPLed code but only distributes that software inside the company, that company has no requirement to distribute the source outside the company.

The company is only obligated to make the source available to those who have access to the executable binaries; there is no legal obligation whatsoever to expose the proprietary portions of the code to anyone else.

With regard to the guarantees found in commercial/proprietary software versus open source software, I think you'll find that almost all software disclaims responsibility for the consequences of running that software.

You might find the Cybersource study comparting a Microsoft EULA to the GPL on the following web site to be interesting:

http://lwn.net/Articles/29830/