On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:26:43 +0100 Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're nitpicking here, if I may say so. Of course, if you > create the derivative work inside your head, you're not > going to distribute it and as such the GPL distribution > clauses don't apply. But: as soon as you write a program, > even for inhouse use (and not distributing it externally), > which will be the norm for a programmer like the OP, > you're bound to the distribution laws of the GPL.
This is basically bunk. Internally "distributing" the software (as in making copies within the organization that created it, or between your disk and RAM, or whatever) is NOT "distribution" under the law. That's all pretty much "fair use", and the FSF says as much. There *has* been a suggestion to add language to GPL 3 to attempt to restrict such in-house "distribution", but not in the existing GPL 2. It is because of this detail that Google has not been required to release a large amount of their software (which is based in many cases on GPL'd software, IIRC). A number of ideas for attacking this kind of use of the GPL in future versions. And of course, opinion is somewhat divided on whether that's an "abuse" or just a natural exercise of "freedom 0". Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or not (but of course it's not a legal precedent until somebody does sue and loses). -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
