Re: distributing source

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 01:52:29PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>  > I do not think so: installing on clients' machines is not considered
>  > (strictly) distribution.  You have two options:
> 
> As a practical matter, it is extremely difficult to detect this sort
> of copyright violation.  Dan's copyright can be effective at achieving 
> its aims even if Frank copies a binary package from his machine to a
> customer's machine.  What he mostly wants to make sure is that there
> is no wholesale distribution of modified versions of his software.
> Since he can pick and choose who he sues for copyright violation, he
> need only sue the wholesalers, leaving people like Frank (and myself)
> free to do what we want.

I don't think it's even a violation, since when you install qmail for a 
client, you are acting as an agent of the client.  In other words, it's the
same as if the client did the installation himself, except that he paid you
to do it.

Of course, this is just my lay opinion.

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna <[email protected]>   | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
http://flounder.net/publickey.html |      38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A