🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <860dn3$bs1$2@justus.ecc.lu>,
Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu> wrote:
>Your suggestion makes all of this moot, and GPL'd software close
>to useless for anyone else but an individual. I prefer to believe
>that a company using GPL'd software does *not* distribute it to
>its employees by installing it on the computers these employees
>use.

So do I.  And I believe so does RMS.

If you think about the goal of the FSF, this point of view is
understandable.  The purpose is to increase the amount of free software
available to end users.  The FSF (and other GPL users) make software
available and allow others to produce and distribute derivative works,
providing that they license them similarly.  The hope is that software
producers will find that the development savings they achieve by not having
to start from scratch outweigh the potential revenues from proprietary
licensing, so they'll jump on the free software bandwagon.

How would this goal be furthered if internal copying within an organization
were considered distribution?  It would mean that companies that just need
to customize a program for their own use, and not for redistribution, would
have to permit their employees to distribute the customizations outside of
the company.  These customizations might divulge trade secrets or
proprietary business practices, which may be the company's primary
competitive advantage.  It's likely that few companies would be willing to
go to such lengths just to use a program, so such an attitude would not
increase the amount of free software.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.