matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (10/19/89)
David C Lawrence: ) The terms are not ) that anybody must be able to get any derivative work, only that if ) you do give it to someone then they should have access to the source. I agree with David's paraphrasing of this point, but a company I know have is having some problems digesting this right now. The company is not in the business of selling or distributing software, but they do write a lot of code of strictly internal use. (Emphasis on the word `strictly'.) Some of their software incorporates emacs source code, so of course they bought a commercial emacs to use this way. One sticking point preventing them from using GNU software is the meaning of the word "distribute" in the license. If they provided the hypothetical GNU-derivative code to an employee to use or to maintain, would the employee have the right to redistribute it further? If they copied the to another office of the same company, would they have distributed it? What is RMS's intention in the case of software intended to be used privately in the conduct of a non-software business? ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (10/22/89)
In article <5889@tank.uchicago.edu>, matt@oddjob (Matt Crawford) writes: >One sticking point preventing them from using GNU software is the >meaning of the word "distribute" in the license. If they provided the >hypothetical GNU-derivative code to an employee to use or to maintain, >would the employee have the right to redistribute it further? If they >copied the to another office of the same company, would they have >distributed it? This doesn't seem as difficult an issue as you're making it. If some employee of the company gave a copy of the software to another office of the same company, then she is "distributing" that software, as the GPL uses the term. The receiver of the software can then request a copy of the source code if he so desires. Any company that denies its employees access to source code of internally developed and maintained software is asking for trouble. As to whether an employee has the right to redistribute the software further, all anyone who wishes to redistribute GNU-derived software has to ask herself is whether she is willing to provide machine-readable source code to the receivers of the software. >What is RMS's intention in the case of software intended to be used >privately in the conduct of a non-software business? I obviously can't speak for RMS, but I would only have three words as to how software should be used: Share, share, share! --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) (10/31/89)
In article <5889@tank.uchicago.edu> matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes: > David C Lawrence: > ) The terms are not > ) that anybody must be able to get any derivative work, only that if > ) you do give it to someone then they should have access to the source. > > I agree with David's paraphrasing of this point, but a company I know > have is having some problems digesting this right now. The company is > not in the business of selling or distributing software, but they do > write a lot of code of strictly internal use. (Emphasis on the word > `strictly'.) Some of their software incorporates emacs source code, so > of course they bought a commercial emacs to use this way. > > One sticking point preventing them from using GNU software is the > meaning of the word "distribute" in the license. If they provided the > hypothetical GNU-derivative code to an employee to use or to maintain, > would the employee have the right to redistribute it further? If they > copied the to another office of the same company, would they have > distributed it? Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, I would think that you have not "distributed" code here, unless you are under court order to operate your various offices as truly independent business units. Legally a corporation is a person, and the software is in the possession of the corporation, rather than the employees. (Try selling your terminal to a friend and pocketing the cash to test this point :-) :-) Therefore, since you are not distributing the modifications, you can copyright them however you wish, as well as considering them company confidential information. Employees would remain free to copy and distribute the original GNU contribution you had received. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469