Re: defining 'distribution' (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 10:22, Joe Moore wrote:
> Jeff Licquia wrote
> > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> >> My /usr/local/bin can
> >> be NFS-exported to hundreds of computers. Even my box can have
> >> hundreds logins there.
> > Yes, but in the former case, you are distributing the program to
> > hundreds of computers. In the latter, hundreds of users are running
> > the program.
> What about a clustered environment, such as Mosix? One virtual machine (the
> cluster) consisting of many individual nodes. /usr/local/bin/latex can be
> running on any of the nodes.
> Is that distribution?
In regards to what? In the case of the LPPL, then yes, because it's
explicitly defined that way.
For licenses that don't explicitly define distribution (such as the
GPL), then it would depend on a lot of factors I don't know. For
example, to what extent do all of the machines on the cluster have a
I doubt such questions will be resolved, because it's just so much
easier to provide the source than fight it out.
> If I'm the only user on the cluster?
> If there are 1000 students logging into the cluster?
I don't think either of those facts are relevant to the GPL. Again, I
"The act of running the Program is not restricted..."
> If the data is not shared over a network, is it distribution? For example,
> a SAN-attached shared disk array that provides the same physical partition
> to several systems? How is that different than AFS, NFS, or rsync?
I don't know. Neither am I quite clear as to how such hair-splitting is
relevant to my main point: the GPL is much clearer and less restrictive
than the LPPL.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com