🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <slrn8850as.4t.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org>,
	isaac@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) writes:

> I copy, modify, compile into binaries, and copy and execute the resulting 
> executables of GPLed source code on my own system very often.   I just
> don't see anyone caring a wit about what license I use for that code
> until I try to give it to someone else.   I don't see any conflict with
> paragraphs in the GPL that talk about modifying works, because none
> of the responsibilites described in the GPL are meaningful until I try
> to distribute the results.

I think the problem stems from the fact that Jeffrey (who, IIRC, is
a lawyer), thinks with a legal mind. In my reckoning, that means he
sees the text as a judge might interpret it, not whether this makes
sense according to one or other logical system.

If a corporation is a legal person, are copies made *by the corporation*,
but used *by its employees* to be seen as distribution, or to be seen
as copying by an individual. The legal answer to this question will
depend on the definition of a legal person, and on a whole ream of 
other laws that the judge considers relevant to the particular case.

One similar discussion I can recall is whether e-mail addressed to an
individual on a computer owned by his employer is covered by the
privacy laws.

IANAL, but I think that a legal person (as opposed to a physical
person) only has a limited set of rights (like suing and being sued,
ie entering into contracts). Whether this is enough to make copying
onto a number of machines owned by that corporation not equivalent
to distributing the software would need to be tested in court.

The law is like statistics --the obvious answer is often incorrect ;-)

-- 
Stefaan
-- 
--PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
        The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.