Subject: Re: What's the definition of "distribution"?
From: D Henkel-Wallace <gumby@Henkel-Wallace.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:28:31 -0700

On Thursday, June 20, 2002, at 12:21 , Mark Shewmaker wrote:
>
> Short version of response:  Woah!  So then Microsoft doesn't have
> separate grounds for compliant if you distributed a copy of Word
> that you made to a coworker, apart from any complaints they may
> have about making the copy in the first place?  Shocking!

I think it's time to repeat the annual hacker/legal slogan: the legal 
system is not some first order rule system in which you can prove theorems.

Copyright law can talk about distribution, but this is a licensing issue, 
not copyright law.

Within a single corporation you don't "distribute" something any more than 
you do when you move something around in your body's blood stream.  The 
company is a single corporate entity.  There's plenty of case law to 
demonstrate this, as well as the contractor umbrella mentioned on this 
list.