🚀 go-pugleaf

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> 1. If distribution doesn't require a transfer of ownership, even an
> immaterial thing like a tarball, does that mean that me asking
> an agent to use a program implies distribution?

Note that use is distinct from (copying and) distribution.

> 2. Does the fact that the agent did not initiate nor participate in
> the "distribution" as such (ie he received a complete tool, that
> contains GPL'ed executables, but he isn't necessarily aware of
> that fact) make a difference?

I don't see how.  If you obtain a computer (or software package) that happens
to contains binary GPLed software on it without being aware of such, you still
have the right to redistribute, obtain source, etc.  There are actually plenty
of products like this.  Consider the TiVo, which contains the Linux kernel.  I
suspect that no more than 1% of the purchasers of this product have any idea
that it does, yet their rights are unaffected by this, as they should be.

> 3. Is the fact that I did not intend to distribute somehow make a
> difference?

Unlikely.

> 4. Does it matter that the GPL'ed binaries are on a machine that
> doesn't belong to the agent?

It is unlikely that ownership of the machine makes much difference at all.  It
is a distraction.  Intellectual property is distinct from its physical
embodiment.

> 5. Does it matter that the person is an agent, and not someone
> who buys, leases, rents something?

Maybe.  It depends on the interpretation of the "copy and distribute" clause
of GPL.  That's what is being considered here, and the question is unclear.

> 6. Finally, does someone borrowing my machine imply that I'm
> implicitly distributing the software it contains to him?

Probably.  In fact the US copyright law says:

--->
''Publication'' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords 
of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, 
or by rental, lease, or lending.  17 USC 101. 
<---

Note the inclusion of "lending" as a form of distribution.