Michael Poole wrote: First, Michael, thanks for your balanced response.
> it is non-free to require a distributor to serve > copies of the work to third parties Well, conditions in Section 3 of the GPL v2 actually do require distributor to serve copies of the work to third parties. > Vagueness certainly can affect freeness. Yes, however, in this case it doesn't seem to. > Under which laws would distribution within a > corporate entity be treated as public distribution? Who knows? There are hundreds of countries. Laws in some countries may not allow a corporate entity to become a single licensee. In such countries, the GPL might fail in this respect (i.e., become a non-free license). > it seems odd to address members at the same time as employees. I don't think it's odd. If a license says "member/employee", then it clearly covers both members and employees equally. What's wrong with it? If I wrote the license I wouldn't devote one paragraph to members and another to employees if both paragraphs permit the same thing. > Is "A/B" the union or the intersection of the two sets? If A is synonym of B, then B is redundant. If A is not a synonym of B, then A/B means A "or" B. In English, slash separates alternatives of a single syntactic (but not semantic) element. Also, from the GPL v2: "it is up to the author/donor to decide" As you can see, GPL v2 uses slash-separated alternatives as well. If I used your terminology, I would say "This is a lawyerbomb". Regards, John __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
