🚀 go-pugleaf

Isaac wrote:
> If you copy the executable to two of your own computers then you need to
> give yourself the source code.   Is that what you are saying?   Do you
> believe the clause you cite is triggered if you distribute to yourself?  I
> don't.

It is triggered by the act of *copying* the executable.  It is not even
necessary to consider the act of distribution.  The clause which give you any
right to copy executables require that the copy be "accompanied" by either the
freely distributable source code, or a written offer granting the right to
obtain freely distributable source code.  The section of GPL which grants the
right to copy executables (section 3) requires this, regardless of whether or
not distribution occurs.  Otherwise, you have no right to perform these copy
at all (section 4), other than "fair use", and widespread copying between
different employees of an organization is unlikely to be "fair use."

In addition to the issue of what GPL actually says, there are some sersious
practical problems with allowing unencumbered distribution "within a company,"
because that phrase is not very well defined.  What about employees who are
employees of more than one company at the same time, or that work for one
company but are working with/at another company as part of a cooperative
development?  Related entities?  Contractors?  Joint ventures?  Acquisitions
and spin-offs?  

Most typical software licenses don't need to deal with these complex problems
because the licenses don't permit copying between employees of the same
company, and even site licenses are frequently linked in some way to a
physical location and don't depend primarily on defining complex legal entity
relationships.