> If both machines are your own machines for your own use, you still have not > distributed it (unless making a backup copy would be distributing as > well), but I understand what you meant....and it is not the > definition of "distribution" which needs scrutiny, IMO. > > The issue, as I wrote, is whether the human is the licensee as > per the GPL. In a legal sense, the licensee may be the company, not > the human. and perhaps the GPL should be amended to clarify this so that corporate legal departments will be less likely to suggest source-licensed proprietary software in place of free software. since there seems to be no argument on whether companies keeping their modified free software as internal secrets is a good/bad thing, we may as well put our position in writing to make everyone's life a little easier. kris
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Justin Wells
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exempt... Mark Shewmaker
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Derek J. Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Kristofer
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... bruce
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Derek Balling
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... Forrest J. Cavalier III
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption ... Justin Wells
- Re: Corel: No "internal" exemption in GP... bruce