Re: [OT] open source distribution

[Henning Moll <newsScott@gmx.de>]

On Friday 29 August 2003 19:39, Stefan Waidele jun. wrote:
> Since you don't distribute, you don't _need_ to put it under GPL. But
> simultaniously, you _must not_ distribute it under any other license.

So, the big question is: What does distribute mean? For example:

A system administrator writes a little handy perl script using some gpl'd perl 
libraries (as mentioned in the gpl-faq, this is linking, and therefore, the 
new tool can only be distributed under the gpl...). But the adiminstrator 
doesn't intend to distribute, he only install it on a machine used by many 
clients/users.

One day, a nosy client find the tool useful and send it out to the internet...

Hmmm, what now?

In my opinion, the client does breach the copyright of administators work. The 
code was not ment for distribution and (therefore) it was not under the gpl. 
The client didn't have the right to make the script 'public'.

But now it's to late. How to cope with this situation? It can't be revoked.

As far as i know, to sell a (compiled) work (which is linked to gpl code) 
means distributing it. Therefore it must be under the gpl. Now back to the 
example: The administrator does not sell the code. He only grants users the 
right to use the _installed_ programm. Is that distribution (if he does not 
take a fee for using the programm)?

What if he grants the right to use _that_single_installed_programm (!) only by 
a fee? Is that distribution?

Please enlighten me!

Henning