Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Since there was no reply so far: IANAL, but AFAICS, the main question is whether unreleased software (which is a derivative of GPL work, but wasn't put under the GPL) can/should be called free software, or whether this question is relevant at all (-; since the only one who has to the software at all also has the freedoms).
Anyway, Peter Gerwinski (who originally wrote the above paragraph) suggests the following clarification:
[...] If you choose to release it, it must be under the GNU GPL. or
[...] It is not necessary to release it, but if you do so, it must be under the GNU GPL.
IMHO the clarification is less accurate then the original. GPL requires derivative works to be free software, but one can choose different licence for new parts (say MIT licence). In fact, one can invent "Fixepoint PublicLicence" (FPL in short) which is a copy of GPL, but requres that all derivative works are (if) distributed under FGPL. AFAIKS FPL is incompatible with GPL, yet a lot of folks thinks that GPL is FPL.