From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What is distribution under copyright law?
This isn't the proper legal language, but it is the conveyance of a copy
from one legal entity to another.
> What is a recipient of a copy under copyright law?
Any legal entity who is conveyed a copy.
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
[Lots of snips]
> I read the three things above as saying that all recipients to modified
> or unmodified GPL-covered works must be given notice that the work is
> licensed under and can be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
>
You left out a relevant part of the GPL, from section 0.
E
At 06:20 AM 9/23/99 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues,
>like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years
>of experience in being talmudic about the GPL.
>
>But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GP
They did raise the fact that they found the GPL vague on some issues,
like "what is distribution". It's not vague to me but then I have years
of experience in being talmudic about the GPL.
But I will raise with Stallman the fact that the GPL could use a definitions
appendix. Last time I raised th
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 12:12:20PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:20:35AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>
> > The issue is whether the "you" (the licensee) refers to a human
> > individual or the corporation, and whether keeping it inside
> > your company counts
> 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 meantand it is not the
> definition of "distribution" which needs scrutiny, IMO.
>
> The issue, as I wrote
From: "Derek J. Balling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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,
>
If both machine
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
>se
[analogy snipped]
> If you would consider that to be distribution of the book, then why
> wouldn't you consider the situation to be the same with software?
>
Software licenses (often) grant rights to perform actions which
would not be permitted by copyright law. You cannot "reason" by
analogy
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:20:35AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you
> > use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from
> > the conditions of the
> The GPL doesn't seem to explicitly allow me to restrict its flow, so
> regardless of whether or not he has a job tomorrow for violating company
> policies, the legality is such that I don't think they could actually bust
> him on a copyright violation, since any modifications/derivative works
But we're not as concerned with the "distribute source" requirement as we
are about the "redistributable" nature of the item in question.
For example:
1.) I get "app A" (licensed under the GPL) from the web. I modify it (make
it faster, say), and I put it on all our servers nationwide. I put a
Currently, if you do not distribute a GPL binary, you need not distribute
source. RMS was musing at one point about requiring distributed source for
a binary that gets "public performance" (which he can do under basic copyright
law), but this does not exist in the current GPL.
Thanks
This raises an interesting question: If have a piece of GPL'ed code, and I
modify it for my internal application, putting it on a number of servers,
are you saying that just because I installed that modified code on my own
servers that I have to release it to the world?
Not disagreeing with y
From: Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you
> use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from
> the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company.
>
As I read it, the GPL does not r
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:40:02AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you
> use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from
> the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company.
The theory is that the
If my company buys a book, we are not allowed to make 1000 copies of it
and hand them out free to all employees and shareholders. We have no right
to make copies of the book for this kind of "internal development".
Why would it be OK to do this with copyrighted software?
Ordinary copyright law
I got a very reassuring phone call from Corel today, I'm confident
the problem will be resolved.
Regarding your GPL question, I think you could make a case that distribution
to your own employee or a contractor is part of internal development, but the
beta test agreement doesn't really establish
Regarding Corel and licensing:
Some people claim that because the Corel testers are some manner
of consultants, it is an "internal" thing and therefore not covered
by the GPL.
I see nothing in the GPL that makes any exemption for internal copying.
Presumably if I give a copy of GPL'd code to s
20 matches
Mail list logo
