I'm currently examining the possibilities and implications of linking against a GPL library for an application in a commercial context.From what I've understood of the GPL, as long as the application is used internally there is no obligation to release its code (even if a copy is moved to a controlled subsidiary).What I don't understand is the following point from the FAQ :If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license? Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the library.If I take a look at the GPL-compatible licenses, some of them (like the boost one) don't seem to impose the release of the code. Using it would create a situation where you could be compliant with the GPL licence without having to respect its obligation of making your code public (which doesn't seem very credible).(NB : there are components in Adobe Photoshop licensed under boost and I don't think the code is available on demand)The most reasonable explication would be that I'm missing something... Could you please tell me where I made a mistake ?
How are GPL-compatible licenses like MIT usable in GPL programs without being subject to the copyleft provision?
licensing