On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 13:57:42 +0300, Jean Louis wrote: > * Mike Gerwitz <[email protected]> [2020-09-08 07:56]: >> Internal distribution (to other employees) counts as the same >> party. v3 also states: > > While I do understand to which link and section of interpretation of > the GPL you are pointing to, I do not agree that it is same as we were > speaking of.
While our concerns overlap, there are some distinctions. I'll elaborate below. > So you refer to this: > >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution > > Quote: > > Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company > “distribution”? (#InternalDistribution) > > No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for > itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop > a modified version and install that version through its own > facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that > modified version to outsiders. > > However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations > or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies > to contractors for use off-site is distribution. > > End of quote > > - making a copy in my organization would mean somebody let us say, > burning the CD or placing OS on the USB stick, or doing some other > kind of duplication or replication of software on multiple > computers, or various media, and that can be done by myself or by > any staff member in the name of the organization management. Even if > such software is modified, I am doing it for my organization, like > preparing copies, duplicates, or installing it on computers. That is > what the above interpretation says, just making copies for itself, > or developing modified versions, installing such on own facilities, > meaning on own computers, without giving staff permission to release > it, is not distribution. This is quite clear to me, it was clear > previously, and myself I can clearly see it is not conveying of > software. Software is there to be used on my own facilities. We are in agreement. > - but let us say, I provide CD/DVD or USB sticks or server links and > advise staff members to install such software for better function of > our organization, where staff members individually receive such > software, they could be in-house or outside of house, where the > staff member is installing free software on person's own phone for > better function of organization, or if such software is installed on > computer that belongs to organization, but I have given the USB > flash or DVD to staff member, without making note of "internal" or > that staff member is doing it in the name of the organizational > management, but is only advised to install software for usage, then > such staff member is facing license texts and if I did not forbid it > (no reference to that in GPL that I know) -- then that is conveying > software. There are a few different things lumped in here. And while I have my own theories, IANAL, and I'd prefer someone else comment on such situations. I also suspect that the particulars of a given situation are important. But it's becoming tangential to the original discussion. >> So when the organization receives a copy of the software from a third >> party, that organization is entitled to the source code. But the >> organization has no obligations with regards to internal distribution, >> e.g. to employees. > > The interpretation did not mention the word employee, I know. > Yet, if I provide DVD of operating system and I tell to employee that > he shall install it, without giving special notices and informations > that software should not be released, and without giving employee > power of attorney or other authorization to act on behalf of > organization only, and when employee is convinced that employee > received the DVD/USB or had access to free software over Internet, > than in that case that is conveying of software. Again, you'd want to consult with a lawyer on this. The particular situations under which you are expected to be acting on behalf of an employer or in a personal capacity vary from one jurisdiction to the next. > It is not a slight difference, employees too often do private things, > and if you give them USB flash, they may understand that as a gift, > and may never even give it back in some cases. If it is indeed intended as a gift for an employee to use in a personal capacity, then yes, the work has clearly been conveyed, and the employer is bound as a distributor to the terms of the GPL. > Making copies internally is not same as advising employee to download > from public server and install software, do you see? There are many > cases how software is conveyed to employees and one case does not fit > that interpretation mentioned, and interpretation does not even refer > to conveying, it refers to making copies on its own facilities, even > in that case employee installing such software or receiving it should > be doing so in the name of management. That's a different case. If an employee is acquiring software from a server that is not owned by the employer, then the employer is _not_ the distributor. However, if the employee is acting on behalf of the employer, then the employee doesn't necessarily have the rights to the software. > All those are so much hypothetical issues, but clarification that you > have made is helping those on this public list to hopefully interpret > better what GPL allows. Yes, I appreciate this discussion. -- Mike Gerwitz
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
