🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:26:12 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
>
>I've heard this interpretatin before but frankly I don't see the basis for
>it.  Such copies certainly are copies under copyright law, which requires
>permission of the copyright holder.  Otherwise, as you suggest elsewhere, BSA
>could not take action against comapnies that copy software "but only within
>the company."  And see the Texaco case, which had to do with journal articles
>being copied and distributed within a company.  This inside/outside
>distinction sounds like nonsense to me.
>
The distinction is that mere copying without distributing doesn't trigger
any important responsibilities under the GPL.  The GPL could of course
restrict such copying but it doesn't.  I think this is the main reason
that the results for the Texaco case are different from what RMS
suggests the GPL allows.  

For the non GPL cases, copying and distribution are intimately linked
together and permission for either is reserved by the copyright holder.
The difference in results for GPL vs non GPL internal distributions
just isn't that surprising.

Isaac