Software licenses and releasing Python programs for review

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 03:57:29 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:

> "Robert Kern" <rkern at ucsd.edu> wrote in message 
> news:d7u737$8or$1 at sea.gmane.org...
>> Mike Meyer wrote:
>>> I've heard people argue otherwise on this case. In particular, if you
>>> allow an employee to use your GPL'ed-but-not-distributed software,
>>> they are the end user, and have all the rights granted by the GPL. So
>>> they can distribute the software - possibly to your
>>> competitors. Employment contracts can't prohibit this, because the GPL
>>> specifically disallows "distribution" (allowing your employee to use
>>> the software) under licenses that restrict the rights granted by the
>>> GPL.
>>
>> Well, the FSF at least thinks that internal use within an organization
>> does not constitute distribution.
> 
> The fact that GPL effectively discriminates in favor of large corporations 
> (and other organizations) and programmers employed by such (versus those 
> contracting with such), is something I don't like about it.

I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning here. How does the GPL
discriminate in favour of large corporations? What advantage does the
corporation get that I don't get?

The way I see it, if my left hand and right hand both use the software,
that isn't distribution. And if Acme Inc's accounting department and sales
department both use the software, that shouldn't count as distribution
either, in precisely the same way that there has been no transfer of
ownership when Fred from Accounting takes an unused computer from Sales
and starts using it himself.



> This seems 
> contrary to the spirit of the thing.  It certainly supports the myth that 
> organizations are 'people'.

By law, corporations (and possibly some other organisations) *are* people.
Not natural people like you or I, but nevertheless people. For good or
bad, this is the legal fact (or perhaps "legal fiction") in most
countries, and not a myth.


> What if a whole country claimed to be 'one organization' (as the entire
> Soviet Union once was, in a real sense).

I doubt that was ever the case, not even in a figurative sense. But for
the sake of the argument, I'll accept that (say) the country of Freedonia
might claim the entire population of Freedonia to be a single organisation.

> Could it distribute modifications
> 'privately' while denying such to the rest of the world?

Freedonia is a country. Unless some other country takes them on, they can
do whatever they like within their borders because they make the laws.

Of course, they may run foul of international law, and may suffer the
consequences, which may range from angry words in the UN to trade
sanctions to a blockade all the way to invasion (although probably not
over some random piece of GPLed code).

But this is hardly a problem unique to the GPL. What if you publish code
under the BSD licence, and Freedonia rips your copyright notice out of
it and tries to pass it off as their own creation? What if Microsoft
licences Freedonia some software under Shared Source, and they promptly
modify and distribute the source code?

When nation states decide they are beyond the law, or subject only to
whatever laws it is convenient for them to follow, no licence will protect
you.


-- 
Steven