Re: Another GNU License Question

[mike3]

On Aug 12, 3:15 am, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Aug 12, 1:24 am, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > What exactly then is being said in the quoted passage?
>
> >> It defines "internal use", the situation where no distribution
> >> occurs.  For example, if you made a lot of changes to a GPL program
> >> by inserting a bunch of private material, and then something breaks
> >> and you hire a programmer to fix it.  This programmer does not have
> >> the right to distribute your modified program to the world under
> >> the terms of the GPL.
>
> > Oh, and the license is directed at this hired guy, then.
>
> No.  It is directed at you.  If the guy redistributes your program,
> you can sue him for misappropriation, not for breach of license,
> because the programmer got no license in the first place.
>

It is directed at him in the sense that he'd be the one who'd be
getting the "penalty" (ie. the suit mentioned above.).

> > But does the terms under the GPL mean that _you_ cannot go and grant
> > the hired guy permission to distribute your program even if for some
> > odd reason you wanted to?
>
> He does not get a license in the course of the described business
> transaction, but nothing precludes you from giving him one
> explicitly, _if_ you have a license to do so.
>

Ie., if you owned all the program, for example. But why doesn't this
hired guy automatically get license to distribute your "free"
software?
Is it because the "free" software might not be completed?

> --
> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum