🚀 go-pugleaf

In gnu.misc.discuss Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
> This of course, still doesn't address whether distribution within a company is
> distribution or not.  But I don't think that's necessary, since such
> distribution certainly is copying, and the plain language of the GPL treats
> copying and distribution of object code identically.

So you distribute copies to yourself.  (A company is a legal person, right?)
Then the GPL requires you either to put the source onto each machine where
the binaries are installed, or to offer to provide these sources.  But since
you distributed the binaries to yourself, according to the GPL *you* have
the right to force *yourself* to distribute the sources to *yourself*.

The GPL does not force one to exercise one's rights.

But when you allow somebody to grab a binary (one of your employees, for
instance) that he/she subsequently installs on a machine *not owned by you*
(i.e. the company), then you are obliged to provide the source code on
request (if this redistribution was for profit, i.e. "commercial") or
to provide information as to where said source code can be found (if the
distribution was not "commercial").  The GPL then also forces you to make
your modifications available too, right?

P.S. IANAL, and BTW how did all these &#&$^% IP and (C) laws come into
existence?  Give me a time machine any day...