> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version > > (sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now > > suppose that I make the drive NFS-exportable and encourage my paying > > customers to mount it and access the program from there. Would I > > violate GPL? I think yes. > > Absolutely. This is distribution in the classic sense. No additional > definition of "distribution" is necessary. > Note that in this case the customers might not copy the program but just execute it from this location. > > It's not distribution for me to install a package on a system I administer > (or just have an account) and allow others to execute it. They can > "access" it in terms of execution, but if they copy it, they do so without > my permission (and without yours). This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by his users, *distributes* a changed LaTeX. You think he does not; the problem with your theory is that it undermines both the intentions of LPPL AND GPL. You see, there is no reasonable difference between a sysadmin who put a closed copy of a GPL'ed program in /usr/bin, and a cunning manager who made this program NFS-accessible "for execution only" by the people paying a fee. When I execute a program, this is not a distribution. When I allow others to execute it, I distribute it -- even if there is no actual copying of bits between magnetic media. -- Good luck -Boris The game of life is a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
