IANAL. This is discussed at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySys.... R

IANAL. This is discussed at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySys.... RA claims to have adopted this "arm's length" approach, releasing their direct extensions to the community. They ask me for identifying information to let me download the software; don't know if that's against the rules. Critically, their enterprise product is pitched as a collection of separate tools: IDE, debugger, analysis tool, etc. There are a few other ways that people have made GPL'd code proprietary: (1) providing a hosted service instead of distributing software, or (2) distributing only a hardware appliance that contains inextricable software. The latter is controversial with respect to GPL2; GPL3 more clearly prohibits it.