2002-10-31-16:59:35 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry: > On Thursday 31 October 2002 10:58, Bennett Todd wrote: > > But, if I'm obliged to distribute my in-house app in-house with an > > open source license slathered over it, anyone who does receive it > > (in-house) is completely legally free to post it to the world. > > except most employers have their employees sign legal promises not > to do this. Contracts override licenses, at least here in the US.
An interesting subtlety. Too subtle for some folks, I think. I doubt many companies would be willing to have their in-house apps hang on this line of reasoning. Basically, unless I'm failing to understand you, you're proposing that this new definition of "redistribute" that they're trying to specify is unenforceable. They, evidently, disagree with you. > As Henning Makholm states this really is nothing new they are just > being much more explicit. What's new is that they're undertaking to restrict how it can be used within an organization, discriminating based on the geographical distribution of that organization. > Mail someone at the FSF and ask their opinion. FSF? I didn't think they were involved in the Open Source battle, that they were concentrating on Free Software, a much tighter classification. I'll go inquire at opensource.org. -Bennett
pgpODGSu1ZbRE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
