🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:42:06 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
>
>Distribution within a company is distribution.  Similarly, I can make fair use
>copies of Microsoft Office for my own use (as a backup, to facilitate
>installation, etc.) I can not distribute those copies to others within my
>company.

Well under copyright law distribution is distribution, but if someone
uses a license that allows one form of distribution and not another
then saying "distribution is distribution" glosses over a rather
important distinction.

GPLed software doesn't come with limitations on how
many of a company's computers it can be installed on.  I can
buy one copy of linux and install linux on 100 of my computers.
I haven't distributed the software in the GPL sense because the
computers still belong to me.

The question is now whether or not I have to operate the software
on those computers myself or whether I am allowed to hire people to 
use them.   Well since the GPL explicitly states that its terms don't
restrict usage, then as long as I don't let people take binaries home,
then I don't have to give them source.   If one of your buds comes to your
house and uses Microsoft Office on your computer, do you consider this
to be distribution?

I can see possible grey areas if people are allowed to take laptops home,
or if they use the computers at work for personal use, but I don't think
people generally think of the software on their workstation as their
own stuff.

Isaac