Mostly just thinking out loud (congratulations, you're a rubber duck). I think I heard something a while back, about Microsoft changing how they did volume lic

Mostly just thinking out loud (congratulations, you're a rubber duck). I think I heard something a while back, about Microsoft changing how they did volume licensing. Because it really was too much of a PITA, and they wanted to simplify things. I suppose one different would be what's required to get back into compliance one you inevitably stuff things up. In the one case, you have to probably pay (money is fungible) and/or remove things you have installed. In the other case, you have to find something you might not know where it is (if it even still exists) and provide it to the public (and be sure that doesn't violate an other licenses you have). ...I think I might be moving the goal posts a bit here, but that's what you get for being a rubber duck. ;) If you follow what's generally considered good development practices (automated builds, everything in version control, etc), GPL compliance should be dead simple. So congrats, it sounds like you work for people who don't have their heads up their asses. ...hey, maybe that would be a good basis if we ever did turn into a proper profession: version tracking and automated builds.