Subject: Re: External deployment / Otherwise Make Available (was Re: OVPL summary)
From: Michael Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:41:21 -0700

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 18:33 +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> I didn't ignore it - I was responding to someone else (someone off
> list)
> who made the same point as was made here a while ago.

You ignored it in your reply to me in that other branch of this thread.
I can go back there and pick it up again, if you prefer.

> In the instance above, if there is an employee "in the way" I don't
> think
> there is "use" (as would be construed in an IP sense) by a
> non-employee.

That's still avoiding the point. McBurger's website (built with non-OVPL
code) allows users to order. Once the order is finalized, the
Web-ordering system sends the order into the OVPL system. Burger-making
employees only interact with the OVPL system to get orders, but users
are 'using' the OVPL system by proxy through the Web system to
communicate their order to those employees, albeit only indirectly.

Is this 'use' by non-employees according to the license? I think it
could easily go either way, but I'm interested to hear your
interpretation.

Or are you saying categorically, that if there is no employee 'in the
way' and only software proxies of one sort or another, that the code is
definitely being 'made available for use'?

Let's take it a step further. Let's assume that the OVPL'd code is
McBurgers' inventory management system or accounting system. Now,
*every* other IT system McBurgers has (intranet, extranet, or public
internet) needs to interface with the OVPL code in *some* way. Is it
even possible to be reasonably confident that private changes made to
such a system will not obligate the licensee to release them to the ID?

- Michael Bernstein