Re: GPL and other licences

[Bernd Jendrissek]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <mailman.331.1139876876.2858.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that
>would violate the license.

The employer may not legally redistribute *and* then also require the
recipients to do foo and bar and not to do x and y.

But: it doesn't seem entirely clear that an employer giving an employee
a CD with which to do some work is, in fact, redistributing.  I the work
is to be done on machines owned by the employer, I suppose that is
definitely *not* redistribution.  OTOH if the work is to be done on the
employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma
redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the
employee *would* be redistributing (to hirself) *as an agent* of hir
employer.  Once sie has that copy, sie can do as sie pleases since the
employer has no right to impose further restrictions.  Or maybe not
(IANAL).

- -- 
Q: Why does this scheme have so many keys?
A: We added them as the need arose.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/

iD8DBQFD8aKQwyMv24BBd/gRAv6GAKCGhOzserrYVMcYkm1+mw5/IMNCTwCfRHiA
qsIEmYCJsg6KEiDg7GnvpKQ=
=e9P0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----