<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Stefano Maffulli wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1090938591.2716.1442.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 15:41, Samuel Liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think you are mistaken. If I install software on my machine and then
co-locate my machine I am hardly distributing the software.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If you rent your machine with software installed to a third party then
you are distributing not only the hw but also the software. Therefore
the GNU GPL applies and must be obeyed. This is the opionion of the
FSFs lawyers, US and Europe.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I suppose the original question was not clear:<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 22:22, Jerome Alet wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">say some company (A) enhances your software, install the new
combined product on a server appliance, and put the server appliance
at a third party company (B, its client), but DOESN'T SELL the
server appliance to B. Instead of selling it, A is still the full
owner of server appliance, which is installed at B's location only
as part of a support contract. </pre>
</blockquote>
I read this as B is co-locating the server on behalf of A, B taking the
role of ISP.<br>
I agree, if B is the customer and actually using the service provided
by A that this counts as a distribution.<br>
<br>
If A does co-locate the service at B's facilites with a support
contract from B but B is NOT using the services from A, but A has some
independant customers C, who use the service on the computer hosted at
B; does this count as distribution?<br>
<br>
Sam
<blockquote cite="mid1090938591.2716.1442.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It would be a good thing, probably, but it would cost some precious (and
costly) time of our lawyers that we have to spend on something else now
(like this <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/27/microsoft_ec_appeal/">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/27/microsoft_ec_appeal/</a>
). Or you can learn yourself from law books what distribution means and
program the wizard accordingly. Honestly, though, right now the FSFE
can't afford put this effort on a high priority.
</pre>
</blockquote>
No doubt you have better things to do than explain the license, but
you are the only ones authorititively able to explain the license.<br>
I never see the license discussed but without also seeing arguments
over the meaning.<br>
<br>
I could learn from law books but I will actually be spending by time
developing GPL'd software.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>