🚀 go-pugleaf

Graham Murray <graham@barnowl.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m2k8kryeac.fsf@barnowl.demon.co.uk...
> In gnu.misc.discuss, Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels) writes:
>
> > All forms of transfer of ownership require an arrangement between
> > the two parties.
>
> But does distribution require transfer of ownership?  Is an employer
> not distributing pens, computers, paper etc to employees for them to
> be used as part of the employment while still retaining ownership.

Not in the GPL sense, since those employees emphatically do *not* have the
right to re-distribute those pens, computers, paper, etc. to their family
and friends outside the company.  If you want an intangible example,
consider the internal 'distribution' of confidential information for use by
employees in their jobs.

The kind of distribution referred to in the GPL pretty clearly implies
transfer of ownership.

- bill

 Ie
> the employer distributes the physical goods with a licence to use
> rather than transfer of ownership. Extending this to softare (in
> particular GPL'd,) the employer is distributing the software for the
> employee together with a licence for the employee to use for the
> employer's business. Under the terms of the GPL this licence
> distributed to the employees by the employer cannot be more
> restrictive (than the GPL) in allowing redistribution.