"Robert Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mike Meyer wrote: >> I've heard people argue otherwise on this case. In particular, if you >> allow an employee to use your GPL'ed-but-not-distributed software, >> they are the end user, and have all the rights granted by the GPL. So >> they can distribute the software - possibly to your >> competitors. Employment contracts can't prohibit this, because the GPL >> specifically disallows "distribution" (allowing your employee to use >> the software) under licenses that restrict the rights granted by the >> GPL. > > Well, the FSF at least thinks that internal use within an organization > does not constitute distribution.
The fact that GPL effectively discriminates in favor of large corporations (and other organizations) and programmers employed by such (versus those contracting with such), is something I don't like about it. This seems contrary to the spirit of the thing. It certainly supports the myth that organizations are 'people'. What if a whole country claimed to be 'one organization' (as the entire Soviet Union once was, in a real sense). Could it distribute modifications 'privately' while denying such to the rest of the world? Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
