Background: I’m writing in-house software – it has absolutely no contact with the world outside the company – but I’m using various libraries, which themselves do have some license structure. So for example GPL requires that software that re-uses the a GPL-licensed piece of code, to also be under GPL-license. Does that require my in-house application to have an explicit GPL-license, or is this understood implicitly? Does using AGPL-licensed code, require my code to be available to co-workers who use the in-house system?
Question: Does my in-house software need to have an explicit license, to be compliant with the licenses of such libraries? In what cases does in-house software need to have its own license?
4
According to 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.
So your program that uses GPL code does not need to have a specific license as long as it is used only internally. However, “internally” ends when it runs on a public server:
However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to
talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require
release of the source code in that special case. Developers who wish
to address this might want to use the GNU Affero GPL for programs
designed for network server use.
Note that the wording implies this is a corner case and a court might not uphold this view.
3