<!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="mid1090912445.2716.1171.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<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>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This counts as distribution, in both copyright and droit d'auteur
regimes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think you are mistaken. If I install software on my machine and then
co-locate my machine I am hardly distributing the software.<br>
I haven't seen Microsoft trying to charge extra when people move the PC
that contains MS windows, or when I take my laptop into someone elses
offices or plug it into someone elses network.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1090912445.2716.1171.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Question : does company A violate the GPL or not by not distributing
full source code under the terms of the GPL to B ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, A violates the GNU GPL. If you believe that a company is violating
the GNU licenses please follow instructions reported at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm going to say it again, that "distribution" needs clarification.
Either I am wrong or Stefano is, but it needs clarifying by more than
folk contradicting eachother.<br>
<br>
Can I suggest that FSF lawyers produce some sample scenarios by way of
explanation. <br>
I will donate time to produce a web-based wizard where folk can tick
boxes to show what they want to do with the software and the wizard
explains the subsequent obligations they will be under. We all know
that don't distribute means practically no further obligations but
there is no common understanding of "distribute".<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>