On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:47:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:35:02PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > > Consideration of the scenario of use of a modified but undistributed version > > of a program within the modifying organisation would also lead one to > > conclude that our interpretation of 2 as a whole is desirable, and likely > > to be the intention of the license's author(s). > > Why does anyone care about modified copies that don't get distributed? > Has it occurred to anyone how difficult it would be to enforce such a > restriction? How is the copyright holder to know that such modification > has even happened?
Consider the case where I modify gs (since that's the example I used earlier) and deploy it around my company. It seems reasonable to require that I don't remove the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer in the situation. > I feel pretty strongly that no restrictions *at all* should attach to > modification per se, but only to distribution of modifications. Do you still feel the same way in the situation above, or were you just focusing on your personal situation? > What I do in the privacy of my own home is not any copyright holder's > damn business. Good grief, I'd hate to think... ;) Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your boss climbed the corporate ladder, wrong by wrong.
