[OT] some weird GPL licensing questions

[Andreas Pour]

Olaf Jan Schmidt wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> [Andreas Pour, Fr 13.02. 2004 18:48:18]
> > 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.
> 
> The GPL does not say that I must give copies to whoever wishes to have
> them. This also means that a company is not required to distribute a
> GPLed software to third parties or to employees or to whomever.

What good is software to a company if no employee receives a copy?  Once the
employee (or a developer) receives a copy, the company cannot restrict the
employee / developer from further redistribution.

E.g., if Company Acme tells Employee Bob to modify a GPL program to serve the
company, Acme cannot tell Bob not to redistribute the resulting program.  Of
course Bob may on his own decide not to do so, but Acme is prohibited from
restricting Bob; if Acme does, it loses the right to copy and distribute the
software itself.

The conundrum you run into is that it is not possible to actually use software
w/out distributing it to an employee, since a corporation is only a legal entity
and cannot take actions in real life (such as installing software).

Of course it would have been possible to draft the GPL in a way which allowed
what the FSF claims; however, the FSF did not do so.

> Remember, it is the company that licenses the software, not the employees.

You are confusing too many issues.  The basic rule is, you are not allowed to
copy a copyrighted work.  The exception is, under a license.  It is possible to
have a license which a company can enter into and which permits redistribution
to employees, but that is not what the GPL does.  The GPL does what its terms
say it does.  There is no exception for distributions by a company to its
employees.  If you wanted that, the GPL could have said, for example, in Section
6, something like, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the
foregoing does not apply to distributions by a corporation or similar legal
entity to its employees, agents and officers.
"  That by itself probably would not be enough and you would need some further
refining language, but the point is, there is no special exception for
distributions within a corporation, within a government, within a voluntary
association, within a contractual group (such as a beta-testing group), or any
other legal entity.

> While you are right that the company may not restrict the employees'
> rights to redistribute a GPLed software licensed under the GPL if they
> have obtained it, the company is not obliged to give copies to its
> employees for redistribution.

Once it has given a copy to an employee (to install, or develop, or for whatever
reason), it cannot restrict that employee from further redistributions.  That is
my point.  So your boss cannot tell you, for example, "install this GPL software
on server X but do not give it to the public", as that (IMO) violates the terms
of the GPL.  If your boss does not want further redistribution, he can of course
install it himself and out of his own volition elect not to redistribute it
further; but once he gives someone else a copy, for whatever reason, he cannot
limit further redistribution.

Ciao,

Dre

-- 
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely
believe they are free.
  -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe