[Bf-committers] extension clause

Alex Combas blenderwell at gmail.com
Sun Nov 21 20:17:09 CET 2010

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Martin Poirier <theeth at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sun, 11/21/10, Benjamin Tolputt <btolputt at internode.on.net> wrote:
> > On 22/11/2010 2:12 AM, Martin Poirier
> > wrote:
> > > Stealing a copy doesn't count as distribution.
> >
> > The scenario I am talking about is not a "stolen"
> > distribution,
> You did say:
> "A pay dispute, a network hack, an intern wanting to get some cred online"
> That's stealing and is an issue with closed source projects too, obviously.
> If it's willingly given, yes of course, that's distribution and cannot be
> restricted with a NDA or similar agreement.

I do not think you understand what exactly he is saying.

The way I understand the argument, is that

a) the company uses GPL software in a closed source project

b) the company distributes the binaries to its partners/contractors (still
counts as distribution)

c) the company has a dispute with their partners/contractors

d) the partners/contractors leak the program to show the world proof that
the company is breaking GPL

e) the company is sued by the FSF for breaking GPL.

So in this case the "stealing" and "leaking" of the code is not what causes
them to be sued
it is simply a matter of proof to show what the company is doing.

The question is does the GPL apply if you are distributing to partners and
contractors. I believe it does
but I could be wrong about that.

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list