On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:58:54PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > True, but they also typically had access to copy binaries (and > > > therefore, get source code).
> > "The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a > > machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself > > constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold this claim, > > but it is not good for people to start making the claim." > > I wouldn't say it's distribution, but copying. How does having access to copy a binary imply access to source code? -- Glenn Maynard
