4 ms·

Was there a license violation if the software wasn't distributed?

gpm 5y ago
Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... Performing it to Brendan might also have been (but not sure on that one).
- oefrha 5y ago
  > Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... > Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? > No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. > However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. Please consult sources before making a strong statement.
  - gpm 5y ago
    > No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution Which couldn't be more irrelevant, because a) This software doesn't appear to be licensed under the GPL. b) The question here is not whether or not it's distribution, it's if it's copyright infringement. Making copies of copyrighted material is illegal (up to fair use and licenses) regardless of whether or not you distribute them. c) The GPL also requires you maintain the license header when you are making copies (GPLv2 term 1, "You may copy [...] the Program's source code as you receive it [...] provided that you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License [...]" (other terms and conditions do apply, hence the ...'s). d) The license (and the law, and court rulings) is the source material, not GNU's not legally binding faq.
    - oefrha 5y ago
      TFA does say the code was under GPLv2 and CDDL. I would say it’s entirely within your right to distribute it in accordance with what the GPL FAQ considers okay, which includes internal distribution however you want. License header is required when distributing externally.
      - gpm 5y ago
        Oh weird, read over that line. Removes one of my bullet points but doesn't change the result. I agree you can distribute it internally, i.e. you can pass around the hard drive with the single unmodified copy. You can't make copies of it without the header, regardless of whether you keep it internal.
        jcheng 5y ago
        https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo... > Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? > The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
        gpm 5y ago
        Yes, I'm not arguing otherwise. You're not free to make copies without the license. You are free to make copies with the license, because that's what the license granted you permission to do. You aren't free to do so without preserving the license, because you don't have a license to do that and that's copyright infringement. You aren't required to publicly release derivative works or their source, simply because the license grants you the ability to produce derivative works (provided you keep the copyright information intact) without publicly releasing them. You are required to keep the copyright information intact, because the license does not grant you permission to produce derivative works if you do not. The requirement to keep the copyright information attached is simply not connected to your choice to distribute it or not. It's a requirement any time you make a copy or make a derivative work, even if you're only making that copy or derivative work for yourself.

gpm 5y ago

Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... Performing it to Brendan might also have been (but not sure on that one).

oefrha 5y ago
> Yes. Making copies internally is also copyright infringement... No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... > Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? > No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. > However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. Please consult sources before making a strong statement.
- gpm 5y ago
  > No, GPL FAQ specifically addresses internal distribution Which couldn't be more irrelevant, because a) This software doesn't appear to be licensed under the GPL. b) The question here is not whether or not it's distribution, it's if it's copyright infringement. Making copies of copyrighted material is illegal (up to fair use and licenses) regardless of whether or not you distribute them. c) The GPL also requires you maintain the license header when you are making copies (GPLv2 term 1, "You may copy [...] the Program's source code as you receive it [...] provided that you [...] keep intact all the notices that refer to this License [...]" (other terms and conditions do apply, hence the ...'s). d) The license (and the law, and court rulings) is the source material, not GNU's not legally binding faq.
  - oefrha 5y ago
    TFA does say the code was under GPLv2 and CDDL. I would say it’s entirely within your right to distribute it in accordance with what the GPL FAQ considers okay, which includes internal distribution however you want. License header is required when distributing externally.
    - gpm 5y ago
      Oh weird, read over that line. Removes one of my bullet points but doesn't change the result. I agree you can distribute it internally, i.e. you can pass around the hard drive with the single unmodified copy. You can't make copies of it without the header, regardless of whether you keep it internal.
      - jcheng 5y ago
        https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo... > Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? > The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
        gpm 5y ago
        Yes, I'm not arguing otherwise. You're not free to make copies without the license. You are free to make copies with the license, because that's what the license granted you permission to do. You aren't free to do so without preserving the license, because you don't have a license to do that and that's copyright infringement. You aren't required to publicly release derivative works or their source, simply because the license grants you the ability to produce derivative works (provided you keep the copyright information intact) without publicly releasing them. You are required to keep the copyright information intact, because the license does not grant you permission to produce derivative works if you do not. The requirement to keep the copyright information attached is simply not connected to your choice to distribute it or not. It's a requirement any time you make a copy or make a derivative work, even if you're only making that copy or derivative work for yourself.