[OT] some weird GPL licensing questions

[Thiago Macieira]

Andreas Pour wrote:
>While this is apparently the FSF's position, it is IMO unequivocally
> wrong. Intra-company distribution is still a distribution (ask e.g.
> MS if it is OK to buy one copy of software for all employees of a
> company)[1], and if the company tries to prevent employees from
> re-distributing further, it is imposing additional obligations and
> hence loses its right under the GPL to distribute at all.

That's not how I read it.

If a company has a license to deploy a certain number of installations 
of a given software (be it 1, 5, 10 or unlimited installations), they 
can install the software wherever they want. However, the user using 
the software is not the one to who received the license: the company 
is.

Therefore, the user has no right to take software from the company's 
computer and redistribute it. Nor does he have right to claim a license 
be given to him.

That would be akin to an employee erasing the software from the 
company's computer and installing it on his personal notebook, then 
taking home. No, the software was licensed to the company.

-- 
  Thiago Macieira  -  Registered Linux user #65028
   thiago (AT) macieira (DOT) info
    ICQ UIN: 1967141   PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
    E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20040213/2556c7b0/attachment.sig>