🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> writes:
> 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.
> 
> Now, in the case of GCC, all work has been assigned to FSF, so if RMS says
> that copying within a company is allowed without GPL obligations fine, but
> what about the Linux kernel, for example, which does not require assignment. 
> What right does a company have to violate each contributor's copyright by
> non-compliant "internal" copying?

Have you actually *read* the GPL?  You might want to try it.  It grants
copying rights with certain restrictions, including the requirement for
source redistribution IF the object code is redistributed.  If no object
code is redistributed, no source code need be.

If an entity uses the program internally, and does not transfer copies
to another entity, it has not been redistributed.  By definition you can't
redistribute something to yourself.

Normal software licenses permit making a limited number of copies (often
only one), regardless of whether the software is used internally,
redistributed, or nailed to the wall.  When the BSA takes action against
someone distributing pirated copies, the specific act that is called into
question is the copying.  The distribution is material only to the
determination of damages, and is irrelevant to the determination of
whether copyright infringement has occurred.

Disclaimer:  IANAL.  YMMV.