On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:40:58PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:28:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > > > Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed?
> > >
> > > Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used earlier)
> > > and deploy it around my company.
> >
> > How is "deploying" it not "distributing" it?
>
> Because it's kept entirely within the entity that created it ("it" being the
> derivative work based on gs).
>
> I don't believe that would generally be counted as distribution. But IANAL etc.
I do. And so apparently does the RIAA, who feel it's an infringement of
copyright for people to put their own ripped audio onto sharable volumes
at work, at least once someone who doesn't own an officially sanctioned
copy accesses it for the first time. Likewise, the police can bust you
for "possession with intent to distribute" for carrying certain
quantities of marijuana, and I don't think the law's assumption is that
you necessarily intend to be distributing to general public, or on the
open market -- it is enough that you might distribute the stuff
privately to your friends.
We may not like the RIAA or marijuana laws, but their interpretation of
"distribution" may end up being the controlling definition.
I'm not even it's a bad definition, even if sometimes gets applied to
evil ends.
Nick's words my words
----------------------------------------------------
deployment private distribution
distribution public distribution
I think my terms afford less ambiguity. What would you call the class
of activities that encompasses both "deployment" *and* "distribution"?
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / /
branden@debian.org | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpzv649TSfmC.pgp
Description: PGP signature