| |||||||||||||
Google, why notGoogle, why notPosted May 25, 2007 16:13 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: Google, why not by man_ls Parent article: A day at the Open Source Business Conference
I hope I put this all in the context of the GPL, not general copyright law. Absent the license, copyright would clearly prohibit making internal copies.
In the terms of the GPL, however, I believe what I said was correct. The GPL establishes the grant of permissions and hte responsibilities associated with them and those seem to me to allow internal distribution because such distribution is already meeting the requirements of the license (and, thereby, your responsibilities to the copyright owner).
The FAQ has no legal force, so changing it would not in any way affect the terms of the license.
Again, note that I am only talking in the context of the current license terms. The GPL could be rewriten to limit internal distribution, since that is a right reserved to the copyright holder. I am simply saying that under the current terms, internal distribution does not need to be considered specially - it's just like any other distribution.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||