On Aug 20, 8:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Aug 12, 9:33 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>mike3writes: > >> > Ie., if you owned all the program, for example. > > >> Or if the program has been distributed to you under the terms of the GPL. > > >> > But why doesn't this hired guy automatically get license to distribute > >> > your "free" software? > > >> Because a copy of it has not been distributed to him. He merely has > >> temporary possession of a copy in his capacity as your agent. > > >That makes more sense. But could you grant him additional permissions > >if you wanted? > > Of course. You could in fact distribute the code to him/her under the > GPL if you like. But in a work for hire situation, that isn't an > automatic distribution. So until it's specifically distributed to them > under the GPL, they do not have the right to redistribute that code. > > BAJ
That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
