Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Kristofer]

> If both machines are your own machines for your own use, you still have not 
> distributed it (unless making a backup copy would be distributing as 
> well), but I understand what you meant....and it is not the 
> definition of "distribution" which needs scrutiny, IMO.
> 
> The issue, as I wrote, is whether the human is the licensee as 
> per the GPL.  In a legal sense, the licensee may be the company, not
> the human.

and perhaps the GPL should be amended to clarify this so that corporate
legal departments will be less likely to suggest source-licensed
proprietary software in place of free software. since there seems to be no
argument on whether companies keeping their modified free software as
internal secrets is a good/bad thing, we may as well put our position in
writing to make everyone's life a little easier.

kris