Subject: Re: Change ot topic, back to OVPL
From: Ben Tilly <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:35 -0700

 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:35 -0700
On 8/24/05, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 24 August 2005 16:47 -0700 "Smith, McCoy" <mccoy.smith@intel.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > FSF has an FAQ on this point:
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePoste
> > dPublic
> 
> Sadly it is inaccurate (well, perhaps 'doesn't tell the full story'
> would be a better term). There is a three-limbed obligation under the GPL.
[...]

Isn't there another complication as well?  My understanding (IANAL and
all that) is that distribution of source code within a company is not
actually distribution for copyright purposes.  (Though giving copies
to contractors would be, and giving copies to people to take home
would be.)

Therefore a company may internally modify and distribute GPL software
without distributing source code.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution
agrees with this, and I think that this case is particularly relevant
for David Barrett's situation.

Cheers,
Ben