>>I was referring to machines owned by the employer used by the employee
on the employer's behalf.  If media is provided to the employee to
install on such a machine, is that not a form of "distribution"?<<

My own judgement would be no, that is not a distribution. As an employee of
the organization, you are merely an agent acting on their behalf. Remember
that a company, in US law, is equivalent to a person. Therefore, when acting
on the company's behalf, you are considered "the company" much like my hand
is "me", and is not a separate entity. (Imagine the fun if you could go into
court and say "No your honor, I didn't punch that man, this hand to my left
did.")

Michael J. Sheldon
http://www.desertraven.com/
Make a fast friend, adopt a greyhound!


-----Original Message-----
From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
[mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of Kevin
Buettner
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 15:18
To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
Subject: Re: open source and classified software


On Nov 13,  2:20pm, Michael Sheldon wrote:

> If it's classified, it certainly won't be a workstation owned by the
> employee. Installing classified software onto a personal workstation would
> almost certainly involve prison time.

I was referring to machines owned by the employer used by the employee
on the employer's behalf.  If media is provided to the employee to
install on such a machine, is that not a form of "distribution"?  Even
if it is not, if some form of "distribution" occurred to make the
software available to the employer, it seems to me that the employee
is still a "third party" (see below) and as such is entitled to a copy
of the software.

> Let's use a better example. If I mod EMACS, and loan you my computer for
the
> weekend, are you entitled to the source?

I honestly don't know.  The GPL is no ordinary license.  Here is
section 2b from the GPL which describes one of the conditions you
must meet regarding modified works:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

Under this clause, I might well be entitled to the source.  (Note the
phrase "to all third parties".)  I think the answer to this question
hinges on the meaning of the word "distribute".

Again, I would suggest getting legal advice to resolve these sorts of
questions.

> This is the position employers are
> generally in. The employee has no rights to the software, it's the
employer
> that is licensed. And, believe me, you should be happy about this.
> Otherwise, if your employer was violating a software license for software
> they had installed on your company-provided workstation, *you* could be
held
> responsible as the end-user.

I agree that this is the case for most licenses.

Kevin

________________________________________________
See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post
to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.

Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss