French GPL-compatible License

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 09:29 +0100, Samuel Liddicott wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:

(...)

> >Hence, derivate must be GPL'ed.
> >
> ONLY if it is to be distributed.

Yes. But isn't that the case we're talking about?

> I would welcome more clarification on what constitutes a distribution. 
> If a small company modifies and builds and runs GPL software on a single 
> computer they are not required to release the source as the derivative 
> work is not being distributed.  Arguably a larger company (having more 
> than one PC) may use the modified GPL software across the company 
> without releasing source - even if they software is used to provide a 
> public or commercial service - because the derivative work is not being 
> distributed. 
> 
> Certainly if the GPL derivative code were made available to another 
> company this would count as a distribution. What about to a different 
> department? What about a different group company? What about to club 
> members? What if the club is a company? What if the club is a company 
> AND a club of companies?

It may belong to a group, but they are distinct companies. Other than
that, most of what you said are considered private circles in most about
anything.

Rui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20040713/d397a139/attachment.sig>