🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5889@tank.uchicago.edu> matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt 
Crawford) writes:
> David C Lawrence:
> ) The terms are not
> ) that anybody must be able to get any derivative work, only that if
> ) you do give it to someone then they should have access to the source.
> 
> I agree with David's paraphrasing of this point, but a company I know
> have is having some problems digesting this right now.  The company is
> not in the business of selling or distributing software, but they do
> write a lot of code of strictly internal use.  (Emphasis on the word
> `strictly'.)  Some of their software incorporates emacs source code, so
> of course they bought a commercial emacs to use this way.  
> 
> One sticking point preventing them from using GNU software is the
> meaning of the word "distribute" in the license.  If they provided the
> hypothetical GNU-derivative code to an employee to use or to maintain,
> would the employee have the right to redistribute it further?  If they
> copied the to another office of the same company, would they have
> distributed it?

Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, I would think that you have not
"distributed" code here, unless you are under court order to operate your
various offices as truly independent business units. Legally a corporation
is a person, and the software is in the possession of the corporation,
rather than the employees. (Try selling your terminal to a friend and
pocketing the cash to test this point :-) :-)

Therefore, since you are not distributing the modifications, you can 
copyright them however you wish, as well as considering them company
confidential information. Employees would remain free to copy and
distribute the original GNU contribution you had received.

                                      Peter Desnoyers
                                      Apple ATG
                                      (408) 974-4469