Subject: Re: What's the definition of "distribution"?
From: D Henkel-Wallace <gumby@Henkel-Wallace.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:05:29 -0700

On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, at 09:57 , Mark Shewmaker wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 03:00:23PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>>> At 6:04 PM -0400 6/17/02, Keith Bostic wrote:
>>>> Does anybody know if the FSF has tried to define "distribution"
>>>> for the purposes of the GPL?
>
> [...]
>
>> A copy made by a legal entity that is not transferred to some
>> other legal entity is not a distribution in any sense, because there is
>> no transfer (legally) within a single entity.
>>
>> Thus, one employee providing a copy to a second is not a distribution.
>
> So does it follow then that one employee providing a copy of Microsoft 
> Word
> for (the additional) use by another employee would not be considered a
> distribution of Microsoft's code?
>
> If not, why is it a distribution when such a copy is of non-free code
> but not when such a copy is of GPL'd code?

Microsoft's licenses don't generally refer to distribution.  They normally 
tie the license to the machine.