Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)
> From: Jeff Licquia <email@example.com>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, 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.
> Sure there is. In one case, a single computer can use the resulting
> binary; in the other, multiple computers can, after paying an access
What do you mean by "single computer"? A system administrator might
install a copy of a program on an AFS drive, where it can be executed
by any of thousand computers in a campus-wide network. Note that
people on this network might pay a fee to connect (e.g. tuition paid
by students in a university).
If you allow this to be done, than anybody can easily circumvent GPL
by setting up a "virtual campus network" with the sole intention of
executing closed programs, effectively stolen from the GPL communinty,
by his paying customers.
In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com