Jakob Bohm wrote: <snip> > The term "under your direct control" typically does not refer to > physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it > usually refers to "under your [licensee as legal entity] direct > [legal] control", that is any computer that the licensee (which > may be a person, company, organisation etc.) has the *legal* > command over, typically by owning, renting, leasing, borrowing, > getting as sponsorship etc. Thanks for that clarification. That cleans up that problem. :-)
*happy happy joy joy* > > So if a DD is working with weak guest privileges on a remote > computer, the use of which has been donated as a sponsorship to > SPI, and the software is licensed to SPI (not the DD), then SPI > may do the things in the clause without that being an act of > distribution, and SPI may use the DD as a tool to do that work. > > In contrast if the software is licensed to the DD as a person > and the computer was not donated to the DD as a person, then > this clause does not apply to anything the DD does on that > computer, even if the DD is standing in front of the computer > logged in as root and with full access to every part of the > opened up computer cabinet. But it would apply to something > that the DDs friend is doing for the DD on DDs laptop, even if > the DD has no physical or network access to the laptop during > the exercise. > > Just my 2c > > Jakob > -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
