Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>
>
> > Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version
> > (sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now
> > suppose that I make the drive NFS-exportable and encourage my paying
> > customers to mount it and access the program from there. Would I
> > violate GPL? I think yes.
>
> Absolutely. This is distribution in the classic sense. No additional
> definition of "distribution" is necessary.
>
Note that in this case the customers might not copy the program but
just execute it from this location.
>
> It's not distribution for me to install a package on a system I administer
> (or just have an account) and allow others to execute it. They can
> "access" it in terms of execution, but if they copy it, they do so without
> my permission (and without yours).
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.
When I execute a program, this is not a distribution. When I allow
others to execute it, I distribute it -- even if there is no actual
copying of bits between magnetic media.
--
Good luck
-Boris
The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words
return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: