At 11:16 AM 9/22/99 -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: >What clause in the GPL requires that all modification/derivative >works must be under the GPL? > >GPL 2b says any modifications/derivatives which are distributed or >published must be under the GPL. Software copied to internal company >servers, no matter how geographically distant, is still not >distributed or published. If you move it from one machine to more than one machine you have distributed it. Whether or not you personally consider it distributed is irrelevant. In the absence of a definition of distributed being in the GPL, the english-language definition must apply. In fact, the Merriam-Webster definition says it means to give one to each member of a group, which would actually lend itself well to an internal distribution (as opposed to just "releasing it", since what you and I may think of as distributing is not confined to a "group" other than that group known as "homo sapiens")
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Justin Wells
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... David Starner
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Justin Wells
- Re: Corel: No "internal" ex... Mark Shewmaker
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Derek J. Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Kristofer
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Justin Wells
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... bruce