Oh weird, read over that line. Removes one of my bullet points but doesn't change the result. I agree you can distribute it internally, i.e. you can pass around the hard drive with the single unmodified copy. You can't make copies of it without the header, regardless of whether you keep it internal.
> Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
> The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
You're not free to make copies without the license. You are free to make copies with the license, because that's what the license granted you permission to do. You aren't free to do so without preserving the license, because you don't have a license to do that and that's copyright infringement.
You aren't required to publicly release derivative works or their source, simply because the license grants you the ability to produce derivative works (provided you keep the copyright information intact) without publicly releasing them. You are required to keep the copyright information intact, because the license does not grant you permission to produce derivative works if you do not.
The requirement to keep the copyright information attached is simply not connected to your choice to distribute it or not. It's a requirement any time you make a copy or make a derivative work, even if you're only making that copy or derivative work for yourself.
That was my understanding. If removing the license is a breach of terms, therefore the GPL now fails to apply, then it falls back to default copyright laws. And no one would argue copying MS Windows 'internally' is fine.
