🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:
> Have you actually *read* the GPL?

"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> writes:
> Um, have you?
>
> See my other message here.  GPL does not grant the right to copy unless the
> copy itself (regardless of distribution) is "accompanied" by the source code,
> the right to redistribute, modify, etc.

That's simply false.

1)  You *are* allowed to copy it even if you never distribute it.  In fact, you
    are substantially *less* restricted if you do not distribute it.  Sections
    2 and 3 permit you to copy and modify the program and to distribute it,
    provided that some conditions are attached to the distribution.  Therefore
    if you copy it and/or modify it for internal use only, and distribute
    zero copies, those conditions apply to the zero distributed copies.

2)  If distributed, the copy does not have to be accompanied by source; it
    can be accompanied by a written offer to provide source (section 3b).

As I said before, try reading the GPL instead of conjecturing about it.

Your arguments seem to hinge on the idea that XYZco making copies for
internal use constitutes distribution.  That idea is completely contrary
to the normal definition of distribution as used in copyright law.
Distribution involves transfer from one legal entity to another.  If
I make 87,329 unauthorized copies of something, I may have committed
that may acts of copyright infringement, but until I transfer one of
those copies to another party, I haven't distributed anything.