On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 03:27 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of > > internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is > > internal for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source > > to anyone, since it is `internal use', if one would follow your > > thread. > > Yes, Alfred, but a company is _one_ entity. If that company gives a > copy to a worker for _his_ private use then that would be > distribution. > > The world is one entity.
Not legally. > Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to > "agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions > like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license". > > But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in > this entity, so such restrictions are not relevant. This is simply > not true. Of course it's not true. What happens is that those licenses add restrictions upon copyright. That's one of the reasons you have to agree: they add restrictions on what you can do as if in a contract (and thus many confuse copyright licenses with contracts, unfortunately). Rui
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
