Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:12:44 -0500
Message-Id:	<200301031812.h03ICip25569@greed.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
CC:	mchase AT ix DOT netcom DOT com
In-reply-to:	<20030103171211.GA19968@redhat.com> (message from Christopher
	Faylor on Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:12:11 -0500)
Subject:	Re: clean_setup.pl binary-only cache patch
References:	<20030103141927 DOT GB1712 AT tishler DOT net> <20030103152502 DOT GA2129 AT redhat DOT com> <20030103164611 DOT GG1712 AT tishler DOT net> <20030103171211 DOT GA19968 AT redhat DOT com>

> >Hmm...good point.  OK, I will fess up.  I have such a mirror that is
> >only for the convenience of my co-workers and myself.  It is not
> >distributed outside of our company.  Note that I was just trying to save
> >bandwidth and disk space.
> >
> >If this is considered a GPL violation (and in hindsight, it probably
> >is), then I will update my script to download the source too.
> 
> Hmm.  I'm not sure that this is a GPL violation.  I seem to recall
> something about intra-company stuff like this being ok.  I'm Cc'ing
> DJ since he is my resident expert on GPL issues.

The GPL is concerned with "distribution".  It is up to the recipient
to choose whether they want sources or not, not the distributor.  The
question becomes: what is a "recipient"?  In the case of a company,
where the software is provided to the employees as part of their work,
the employees are not recipients.  They are, technically, contracted
or hired to perform certain functions with equipment (including
software) that is owned by the company.  Thus, the "recipient" is the
company itself, not the individuals working within it.  Thus, if the
company itself chooses not to download the sources for binaries it
uses, that's OK.  Heck, you don't own the computer on your desk,
right?  Well, you don't own the software either.

If, on the other hand, the company were to say "we are providing this
software as a convenience to our employees, who may make a copy for
themselves for non-company work on non-company machines," then the GPL
applies, because there is a real distribution happening here.

If you, as an employee, make a copy for your own personal use without
the company's blessings, then again you as the recipient are choosing
not to download the sources (by taking them from a site that only has
binaries).  Although, technically, this is stealing, if that has any
meaning with free software.  The GPL does not require one who has
GPL'd software to allow distributions from their copy, so the company
could make it a policy that you are not allowed to make copies for
personal use, so making copies wouldn't be a GPL violation but would
be a violation of your terms of employment.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -