Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Derek J. Balling]

At 11:16 AM 9/22/99 -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>What clause in the GPL requires that all modification/derivative
>works must be under the GPL?
>
>GPL 2b says any modifications/derivatives which are distributed or
>published must be under the GPL.  Software copied to internal company
>servers, no matter how geographically distant, is still not
>distributed or published.

If you move it from one machine to more than one machine you have 
distributed it. Whether or not you personally consider it distributed is 
irrelevant. In the absence of a definition of distributed being in the GPL, 
the english-language definition must apply. In fact, the Merriam-Webster 
definition says it means to give one to each member of a group, which would 
actually lend itself well to an internal distribution (as opposed to just 
"releasing it", since what you and I may think of as distributing is not 
confined to a "group" other than that group known as "homo sapiens")