Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 05:49:34PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
> a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
> his users, *distributes* a changed LaTeX. You think he does not; the
> problem with your theory is that it undermines both the intentions of
> LPPL AND GPL. You see, there is no reasonable difference between a
> sysadmin who put a closed copy of a GPL'ed program in /usr/bin, and a
> cunning manager who made this program NFS-accessible "for execution
> only" by the people paying a fee.
> When I execute a program, this is not a distribution. When I allow
> others to execute it, I distribute it -- even if there is no actual
> copying of bits between magnetic media.
This is commonly referred to as "use", not "distribution". The "cunning
manager" is also not distributing, unless the intention of his placing
the stuff there was in reality to allow people to download a modified
LaTeX. At which point we are into the realms of expensive lawyers arguing
the toss over his state of mind at the time he put it up.
How the hell do you expect a company who wish to use a modified version
of LaTeX on their server to do so if you define the sysadmin's installing
it as "distribution to the users", as you do above?
Thank goodness that does not appear to be Frank or David's interpretation
Nick Phillips -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Slow day. Practice crawling.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org