[Gllug] Re: Gllug Digest, Vol 20, Issue 42

[David Abbishaw]

I dont think its counted in this case as redistribution, as every machine
that the modified version is installed on has to purchase a licence from
Suse anyway.  One of the reasons this is done is becuase SUSE give the
company some indemnity against SCO law suits etc.

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:08:22 +0000
From: Doug Winter <doug at pigeonhold.com>
Subject: Re: [Gllug] Re: Gllug Digest, Vol 20, Issue 33
To: Greater London Linux User Group <gllug at gllug.org.uk>
Message-ID: <420C7606.5060809 at pigeonhold.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> IANAL, but I believe your interpretation is wrong here. I do not think
> packaging up software and using it internally is considered distribution
> for the purposes of the GPL. If the software was distributed to anyone
> outside the company then there would be no question, but for purely
> internal use I believe they are not in breach of the licence. The
> company would be considered as a single entity for legal purposes.

It's an interesting question.  The GPL FAQ agrees with you:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution

However (and IANAL obviously) AIUI there is nothing the GPL that defines
distribution (just like they don't define derivative), but instead it
relies on the local copyright laws.

I don't think copyright (at least in .uk) makes any distinction between
distribution to your mother and distribution to a co-worker.  If I copy
a copyrighted album and give that copy to a co-worker I'm still in
breach of copyright, not just for the act of copying but for
distributing the copy.

So I'm not sure where that interpretation in the FAQ comes from?

doug.

-- 
6973E2CF: 2C95 66AD 1596 37D2 41FC 609F 76C0 A4EC 6973 E2CF
http://adju.st/


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug