🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:20:16 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> The question is whether or not placing binaries on company
>> computers and allowing the employee to then run does or does not
>> have consequences under the GPL.   
>
>Actually, I think that is a poor (and loaded) phrasing of the question.  
>
>Are employees allowed to copy the binaries?  (In many cases, they are.) If so,
>then this is treated completely differently from running them by GPL, so the
>focus on running is a distraction.  Also, allowing an employee to run binaries
>on a single computer does not look particularly like distribution; installing
>those binaries on a large number of computers throughout an organization looks
>a lot more like distribution.  
I don't think copying is a problem.  I think a more important question is 
whether they are allowed to use the binaries for any purpose other than 
as an agent of the company.  If not then their copying doesn't constitute
distribution.

And if an employee running binaries on a workstation isn't distribution,
why would 100 employees doing the same thing only on their own workstation
not be 100 instances of not distributing.  I note you only claim it looks
more like distribution.   I guess it does look like distribution.
>In reality this is simply one of many cases where the GPL is vague and
>ambiguous.  There is no and will never be any clear answer until either
>someone litigates or GPL is rewritten.
>
I'd agree.  But the real problem is that if the license isn't clear
then other considerations including the author's stated intention must be
taken into account.  One of the advantages of the GPL is the ability to
combine GPL'd code.  If some GPL'd code is actually incompatible with others,
this advantage goes away.
>
>I have expressed doubts about the validity of NDA's as applied to GPLed
>softawre and have argued the point, but I really don't have a solid opinion on
>this.
>
Fair enough.

Isaac