Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Justin Wells]

On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:20:35AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>  From:          Justin Wells <jread at fever.semiotek.com>
> 
> > I am worried that people seem to be getting the idea that if you 
> > use something for "internal development" you are somehow exempt from 
> > the conditions of the GPL, so long as you keep it inside your company.
> > 
> As I read it, the GPL does not require that internal development
> copies be published.

Correct. The GPL never requires anything to be published, ever.


> The issue is whether the "you" (the licensee) refers to a human 
> individual or the corporation, and whether keeping it inside
> your company counts as "distribution" as per GPL 2b.

> I think it is appropriate to consider the corporation the
> licensee (and this is the common legal convention, is it not?),
> and copies which circulate internal to a company are not the
> same as distributed copies.

"You" can certainly refer to a company. The question is whether or not 
handing out copies of software to employees, contractors, shareholders, 
directors, agents, etc., of the company counts as "distribution".

If so, then the company is not required to publish the software, but any 
of the employees/agents/contractors/shareholders of the company who 
receives a copy gets it under the GPL and can decide on their own 
to publish it. 

I really don't know whether internal distribution of material counts as 
distribution in general. Some lawyer would have to decide. 

Reasoning by analogy, I would guess that internal distribution DOES count
as distribution, otherwise the following would be allowed:

   If you buy a book or record, you are allowed to make copies of it 
   for your own use, under ordinary copyright law. You do not have the
   right to distribute, publish, or publically perform those copies. 

   If a company buys a book it also has a right to make copies of it, 
   for its own use. Does this mean that it can buy one book, photocopy 
   it, and hand out copies to each of its employees?

If you would consider that to be distribution of the book, then why 
wouldn't you consider the situation to be the same with software?

This is an interesting question regardless of what happens to Corel, and
I would like an answer as to how it could be that the above situation
is illegal, but internal distribution of GPL'd software can avoid
the copyleft.


> Do you understand the GPL differently?

Someone once told me that they took the GPL to three different lawyers, 
asking what it meant, and got three different answers :-)

Justin