On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:26:19 +0100 Bram Moolenaar <Bram@moolenaar.net> wrote: > OK, I now understand that the company can be considered to be one > licensee, thus passing copies around within the company is not > distributing. Thus GPL'ed software can be modified for use inside the > company. The only problem seems to be that companies don't always > understand this. I know I didn't (sorry for the confusion!). Another way of looking at is that the company can distribute binaries within the company itself - they still have to provide source to the employees who ask for it(not that they can't strongarm and threaten job loss or whatever for those who do). The source must follow where binaries go - if the company makes sure no binaries are sent to the outside world, it can keep the source inside the company - almost always just what they want. I don't think it's required to think of the "company" as a single licensee, though I imagine in many countries that would be a valid statement if those distributing the binaries and receiving them were considered part of that whole. -- .--=====-=-=====-=========----------=====-----------=-=-----=. / David Barclay Harris Aut agere, aut mori. \ \ Clan Barclay Either action, or death. / `-------======-------------=-=-----=-===-=====-------=--=----'
Description: PGP signature