Contradiction in GPL Licensing FAQ The Blender FAQ page (https://www.blender.org/support/faq/) answers these two questions:


  Can my organization use Blender internally without giving up our valuable changes to our competitors?
  Yes. The GNU GPL does allow your organization to use a modified version of Blender internally without offering the source-code as long as you do not distribute it outside your company or organization.
  
  Can I change Blender and give it to my co-workers or employees?
  Yes, but if you make modifications you must comply with the GPL and if they request the source code you have to distribute that to them as well. You can charge for the version of blender you give to your friends even, but it must be licensed under the GPL, and you may not charge an unreasonable fee for the source code.


Don't these two answers contradict them selves?

Example:
Our developers modify Blender and hand it to our production team to do some work for the company.
Individuals from our production team then may then ask for source code and are allowed to distribute it (under GPL)??

That would definitely be in contradiction with the claim that we can "use a modified version of Blender internally without offering the source-code as long as you do not distribute it outside your company".

Or am I getting this wrong?

(I apologize if this question does not belong here, but I could not find other place to post it.)
Can my organization use Blender internally without giving up our valuable changes to our competitors?


The question starts with Can..? and indeed it's possible. All your coworkers and people who come in contact would have to willingly not distribute it any further and to your competitors.

If anyone decides that he wants the source code and he wants to either build upon it or further distribute it (even to your competition), he has all the rights to do it, because the software is licenced GPL.