>I sure didn't understand the GPL license. Just to make sure I understand. If I develop using Kdevelop I do not have to provide source to the client? And if not would I have to provide any source for any reason?

That is correct. The only time one has to release source on a program is if you began by modifiying a program already under the GPL. In other words, you exploit the work of others for fame or profit without returning your code additions back to the community.

If you modify a GNU program but use it only for your own benifit you do NOT have to release the source to your changes. For example, you could make modifications to KDevelop and use your modified version to write apps for clients. You do not have to release your modifications of KDevelop because you are not selling your modified version to the public, or releasing it to the public. IF you release to the general public a modified version of a GNU program you must make the source code of any changes you make publicly available, if you do not include them with the modified GNU program.

Just using (not modifying) a GPL dev tool doesn't require one to release source to apps created by it, if the source for those apps were not GPL, i.e., was original (i.e., from scratch), which is I believe is what you do for your clients. When I was consulting I developed my own BIG 5 accounting framework, and customized it for specific clients. I left a copy of the customized source with them. My contract with my clients included provisions to prevent clients or their employees from using my own source to compete against me for a period of three years.

>
>I figured that general programs would not be given away. But what I was thinking was any special routines or tools. Say you developed a tool that allowed changing metadata for Postgres or what ever. Can you provide the tool or routines to the general public?

If you take an existing GPL app and modify it to produce any 'special routines or tools' and make them available to the general public as binaries you must provide the source of your changes if someone requests it. If you make the binaries availabe only to your clients then only your clients can request the source code changes you made (since they can already get the original source off the WWW). Ergo, your 'non-compete' clause, which prevents them or their employees from using your own code against you.

Besides, on apps as complex as something like a BIG5 accounting system, just having the C++ source is not much help if documentation does not accompany the project. And without documentation it will take a pretty sharp coder to figure out what vars, classes, structures, headers, etc...., do. The GNU says nothing about requiring documentation to be supplied with the source code.

In the early days of the PC revolution companies like RedWing Software were selling accounting applications for Apple and PCs. They used Apple Basic and GWBasic, which are interpretive languages. The program was the source code. They 'protected' the source by using cryptic names for functions, vars, etc..., which is something that is easily done anyway. Their trick was to make all program elements part of an array and only their documentation made it clear what somearray[8,12] stood for. It could be the LPT: printer port, or the sales tax percentage, or the function which calculated the sales tax. I was underbid at a company and found out later that the 'consultant' was using a bootleg copy of RedWing Accounting system (which sold for $5K IIRC) and trying to reverse engineer the array meanings. He failed. His first run of their payroll component was a total disaster. The company called me in to clean up the mess when he refused to answer his phone. That's when I found out what he had done. They started legal proceedings against him.

Before the next two-week payroll date came around I had modified my template for their payroll needs, imported all their payroll history, was ready to roll when payday came around. It ran without fault the first and each succeeding time. Then they asked me to handle an inventory problem, then the accounts payable, then receivables,..... :-), eventually the entire template, at the rate I had originally bid.
JLK