Anthony Towns said: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:58:54PM -0500, David Turner wrote: >> > "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. > > Probably illegal copying. I can use a friend's Windows box, and copy > COMMAND.COM to a floppy disk, but unless he has any idea what I'm doing, > I'm the one violating Microsoft's copyright.
Ok, would this be distribution if your friend knew what you're doing? Or if he made you a bootable diskette? It's obviously discouraged by MS (prohibited by the EULA, I'd assume). The next step up is a group of people who agree that they will share the cost of their software, and install it on all their machines. The next step up is a company who installs a "standard corporate desktop".* The next step up is a full filesharing network where anyone can copy anything. I think it's easy to agree that the first (friend copying for you) is not distribution. I think it's easy to agree that the last (full filesharing network) is distribution. And the line is somewhere between them. > > If the same thing didn't apply when GPL'ed software was included, it'd > be effectively obligating you to distribute. The GPL doesn't really define distribution. Is building a kernel for your friend (who has a really slow 386) and putting it on a floppy distribution? Should you have to also give him the 24-floppy "source"? --Joe * If you install MS Word on more systems than you have bought copies, you're violating MS copyright (according to the BSA). If you install OpenOffice on the same number of systems (still internally), is it distribution?
