On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 08:47:57AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Examples of copying books, which are covered by copyright law,
> and examples of software covered by other licenses are illustrative,
> and useful when discussing philosophy, but they cannot be used
> to reason about the GPL.
What is distribution under copyright law? What is a recipient of a copy
under copyright law?
I think that's all that matters in this discussion, since the GPL claims
to be a statement under copyright law, and relies totally on copyright
law for enforcement, it's those copyright definitions that apply.
The analogy I posted about books was meant to show that "internal
distribution" is actually thought of as "distribution" in copyright
law, and therefore, in the GPL as well.
But since I am not a lawyer, and no lawyer has commented on the issue,
it's fair to say that nobody here has any real idea whether it is allowed
or not.
Justin
