[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: draft for new Vim license



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.    /
 `-------======-------------=-=-----=-===-=====-------=--=----'

Attachment: pgpMCwC9_amLO.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: