Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

[Lots of snips]

> 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.
> 

You left out a relevant part of the GPL, from section 0.
     Each licensee is addressed as "you".

When a corporation obtains software, the licensee is
(normally) the corporation. Just because a human has physical
control over company property, the human is not the owner.

Your term "all recipients" means "all licensees."  Show me
in the GPL where it says each licensee must be "a human being." 

(Also, the GPL makes a distinction between modified and unmodified
works.)

>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.

...Because that is what those licenses say....

Examples of copying books, which are covered by copyright law,
and examples of software covered by other licenses are illustrative,
and useful when discussing philosophy, but they cannot be used
to reason about the GPL.


>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,

[snip]

One of the nice things about free software is that self-appointed
guard dogs like the SPA (now the SIIA) have no need to exist.
That's part of the "extra burdens" discussed in the Manifesto.

Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software  Voice 570-992-8824 
The Reuse RKT: Efficient awareness for software reuse: Free WWW site
lists over 6000 of the most popular open source libraries, functions,
and applications.  http://www.mibsoftware.com/reuse/