Re: GPL and other licences

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >    Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to
   >    "agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions
   >    like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license".
   >
   > But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in
   > this entity, so such restrictions are not relevant.  This is simply
   > not true.

   Of course it's not true. What happens is that those licenses add
   restrictions upon copyright. That's one of the reasons you have to
   agree: they add restrictions on what you can do as if in a contract
   (and thus many confuse copyright licenses with contracts,
   unfortunately).

Then please explain to me why David is insisting of the opposite.

That the CD is property, sure, but one cannot put additional
restrictions on the licensed software on that CD without the
permission of the copyright holder.  And copyright law still applies,
so there is no possible way to claim that `since this is internal use
copyright law doesn't apply'; which is exactly what David is claiming.