🚀 go-pugleaf

If it is indeed within the spirit of the GPL to allow a corporation to make
multiple copies of its own enhanced code for the use of its employees, it
doesn't seem inconsistent for it to be able to make those copies available
for limited use by external parties (just as it does to its own employees),
as long as it retains ownership of and control over those copies and does
not charge the external parties for use of the code, either directly or
indirectly, or permit them to charge others, directly or indirectly, by
virtue of their use of it.  That is pretty much the effect of 'distribution'
under an NDA.

- bill

Stefaan A Eeckels <Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu> wrote in message
news:85utai$76i$1@justus.ecc.lu...
> 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.