Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)
> From: Jeff Licquia <email@example.com>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500
> You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS
> drive in this instance, because you're "distributing" software to those
> thousand computers. This is irrespective of whether any of those
> thousand computers actually execute the software or not.
> This could even apply if you have a license to the software; it may be
> OK to install the software in /usr/local/bin, but not in
> For GPL software, you just have to make sure that any of the
> thousand-or-so computer owners can get to the source for those
> programs. The easiest way to do that would be to export the source
> trees via AFS; they could also stick a written offer in their student
> handbook, or whatever.
Exactly. If you are installing GPL'ed software in this manner, you
must satisfy the distribution conditions of GPL. In the same manner
you must obey distribution conditions of TeX and LaTeX.
My point is, LPPL or Knuth's license is no more restrictive *in this
respect* than a meaningful interpretatation of GPL.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice... moderation in the pursuit
of justice is no virtue.
-- Barry Goldwater
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com