🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <871va3$dm3$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd wrote:
>
>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.

Yes, but GPLed software is, by definition, not a pen, and not confidential
information!

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

Not necessarily.  This is something that is probably open to debate and
needs a good deal more convincing attached than the obviously
oversimplified statements above.  The GPL would appear to state that no
distribution may occur if that distribution does not allow the receiver
to redistribute it.  Pens and company secrets are not licensed under the
GPL and therefore can be distributed under licenses that do not allow
redistribution.