Path: utzoo!telly!moore!ziebmef!becker!geac!jtsv16!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!gatech!ncar!tank!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: A fine point of Gen. Pub. License (was Re: Why I do not support GNU)
Message-ID: <5889@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 89 19:32:07 GMT
References: <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> <1989Oct18.080236.23848@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Morse Science High School
Lines: 23
In-reply-to: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)

David C Lawrence:
) The terms are not
) that anybody must be able to get any derivative work, only that if
) you do give it to someone then they should have access to the source.

I agree with David's paraphrasing of this point, but a company I know
have is having some problems digesting this right now.  The company is
not in the business of selling or distributing software, but they do
write a lot of code of strictly internal use.  (Emphasis on the word
`strictly'.)  Some of their software incorporates emacs source code, so
of course they bought a commercial emacs to use this way.  

One sticking point preventing them from using GNU software is the
meaning of the word "distribute" in the license.  If they provided the
hypothetical GNU-derivative code to an employee to use or to maintain,
would the employee have the right to redistribute it further?  If they
copied the to another office of the same company, would they have
distributed it?

What is RMS's intention in the case of software intended to be used
privately in the conduct of a non-software business?
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford	     		matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu