Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Mark Shewmaker]

On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 12:12:20PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:20:35AM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Then looking at part of that section 2b of the GPL itself:

|...You may [...] copy and distribute such modifications or work
|under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|all of these conditions:...

And Section 1:

|You may copy and distribute [...] provided that you [...] keep intact
|all the notices that refer to this License [...] and
|give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|along with the Program.

And then Section 0 above that:

|This License applies to any program or other work which contains
|a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
|under the terms of this General Public License. [...] 

I read the three things above as saying that all recipients to modified
or unmodified GPL-covered works must be given notice that the work is
licensed under and can be distributed under the terms of the GPL.

It seems to me that an interpretation of an "internal distribution"
exception to the GPL would not only have to show that an
internal distribution is not a distribution, (discussed below),
but also that the recipients of the code aren't recipients.

For an encore we could prove that black is white, but we'd need to
watch out at the zebra crossings.

> > 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. 

This non-lawyer doesn't see how it could possibly not count as a distribution.

Let me give a similar analogy to yours:

If I buy a commercial off-the-shelf program with no end-user
license agreement, but just uses the standard copyright laws,
(to make things simple), I can't make extra copies of that program
for my friends.

If my employer-conglomerate-but-still-one-single-legal-entity
buys a single copy, I still can't make copies for my coworkers,
not without someone negotiating a site-license agreement, or
purchasing multiple retail boxes.

The SPA would be unlikely to find a line of reasoning of "but we're just
internally redistributing the program--It's all owned by one entity,
the corporation, so we're not *really* copying or redistributing the
program to anyone else" to be very convincing.  I think they'd still
be inclined to think that copyright violations were going on, just
based on standard copyright law, and even without a vendor trying
to claim the validity of some EULA of theirs.

Copying a closed-source program internally within a company would pretty
much seem to be a "distribution" to all concerned.  Why would Open Source
programs be any different?


Obligatory Corel comment:

I wrote the above as part of "distribution" discussion, but I
don't accuse Corel of maliciously violating licenses.

It's looking like Corel has simply made an (embarrassing) mistake.
Bruce has said they're working on correcting it.  Not only does
Corel have an opportunity to gracefully correct their mistake
(I'm thinking a well-worded press release may soothe remaining
tensions, tactfully alert other companies not to ignore potential
land mine issues, and show investment types that Corel learns from
and correct their mistakes in internet time--helpful to all sides),
but this is also an opportunity for everyone to react, as has looked
to be the case, in a more pleasant way than a stereotypical closed-source
company would.

Calm and polite discussion, followed by forgiveness for honest mistakes
is a good long-term strategy.  Fortunately, mudslinging and threats
of lawsuits have so far not seemed to have been considered necessary
by any of the license holders.

It would be nice if the perception of the Open Source/Free Software world
was not only one of greater freedoms, cheaper, more functional, and more
efficient code, but also one of more civilized legal disputes.

(At least more civilized at the beginning.  Continued violations would
of course require real lawsuits, or at the very least real flamewars
of the kde-vs.-gtk style, which would be in keeping with the best and
most proper usenet and internet traditions.  :-) )

 -Mark Shewmaker
  mark at primefactor.com